Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Thursday 8 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Farm Diversification

Barbara Follett: What support he is giving to farm business diversification projects. [146775]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The England rural development programme supports our diversification policies through the £152 million that is behind the rural enterprise scheme. That money will be made available over the next seven years. There are also processing and marketing grants, the vocational training scheme, the energy crops scheme and tree-planting schemes. In addition, the action plan for farming provides for new farm business advice services that offer business health checks for those farmers who want them. It significantly supports diversification opportunities. We are also producing a free guide to on-farm diversification and, on top of that, we aim to make available free planning advice to farmers pursuing diversification under the rural enterprise scheme.
The rural White Paper contains a number of extra innovations on planning that will help diversification, and we have consulted on providing time—limited rate reliefs for farmers who wish to diversify into non-farming activities.

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and, in particular, for his remarks on the planning process. Is he aware that many farmers, including Mr. Owen of Mansell farm, Codicote, in my constituency, find the planning process too long and too costly to make such diversification practical?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a good point. When farmers consider diversification, they may not have the economic wherewithal to put behind a planning application, with all the professional costs that that entails.

I hope that it will be possible to help my hon. Friend's constituent with the free planning advice that we now offer, but I would like the planning rules to be more compatible with our objectives for farm diversification. Discussions between my Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are taking place to pursue that objective.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Minister tell us more about the way in which the proposals will affect people setting up riding stables on farms? Although we welcome the opportunities for farmers to be able to diversify, several people who are not farmers have contacted me. They run riding stables and they fear that they will he placed at a competitive disadvantage. Will the Minister ensure that whatever grants and help are available to farmers are equally available to those who specialise in running riding stables?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and that is why the issue of help for farmers who make use of diversification measures is out for consultation. He is right that diversifying into businesses that offer equestrian sports is one possible way forward. People considering diversification look to what public support is available, whereas those who are already in the sector worry about the competitive impact on their businesses. He is right to raise this point; it explains why the issue is out for consultation.

Charlotte Atkins: Would the free business service that the Government have set up for farmers also extend to issues such as farmers markets and farm box schemes? They have been profitable for many farmers, especially small hill farmers such as those in my constituency.

Mr. Brown: It is certainly possible for the farmers who make use of the free business advice—after all, the Government are paying for it—to explore whether it would be practical to go into farm box schemes or other on-farm enterprises. That is one way forward. It is not the answer to every farmer's current difficulties, but it is a useful way of getting more money through farm-based businesses, and one that it is perfectly proper to explore with business advisers.

Mr. James Paice: The Minister announced 10 months ago in his action plan that £6.5 million would be available for farm business advice services to help farmers to improve their businesses and planning, and to diversify. Yet by Christmas only 2 per cent.—£130,000—of that money had been spent. Can he tell us how much he expects will have been spent by the end of March? Will the underspend be rolled forward into the next financial year, or do we add that to the £26 million that he told us last time would probably be lost to the pig industry?

Mr. Brown: It is my intention that every penny of the £66 million that was allocated to the pig industry scheme over three years will be spent on the pig industry. Although I cannot announce the outcome now, discussions are taking place in Government that are designed to achieve that objective. I know, for what it is


worth, that I have the hon. Gentleman's support in trying to achieve that objective. [Interruption.]Let me finish my answer.
Precisely the same point applies to the farm business advice scheme. If it is not possible to spend the budget in this financial year, I want to carry forward the allocated money into the next financial year and, possibly, following years.
Every Member who has been a Minister understands the nature of discussions about end-of-year flexibility and carrying budgets forward. There are issues to be discussed with the Treasury, but I make it absolutely clear to the House that I aim to ensure that the money that was made available at the Prime Minister's March summit is spent on the objectives for which it was allocated.

Organic Farming

Mrs. Diana Organ: What the Government's budget is for research and development into organic farming; and what it was in 1997. [146777]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government have progressively increased the budget for research into organic farming from £1.1 million in 1997–98 to the present figure of £2.1 million. In addition, as part of the action plan for farming, £2.3 million has been allocated to establish the European centre for organic fruit and nursery stock at Horticulture Research International, in Kent.

Mrs. Organ: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. If the development of organic farming is to be successful, Government budgets must be administered efficiently and effectively. What would he say to my constituent, Mrs. Ravenshill of Birdwood, an excellent cheese producer who missed the support scheme for conversion by a few days and was debarred because her certificate from the Organic Trade Association came two and a half months after her application?

Mr. Morley: We have increased the budget for organic conversion and reopened the scheme with an additional £18 million for this year. Following the review of the scheme's working, we have, as part of that increase, formally accepted into the scheme people who have started conversion up to three months before they apply. We have now doubled that window of application to six months, so if my hon. Friend's constituent applied within that six months, she can now apply for the conversion grant.

Mr. David Curry: The Minister will be aware that when consumers buy organic food they often attribute certain characteristics to it. He will be aware also that often there is no scientific basis that would validate the claims that the consumer makes but which the producer knows cannot be made. Should it not be a purpose of the research to try to lay a sound scientific foundation for the qualities of organic food, so that there

is no eventual disillusion and consumers do not think that they are being taken for a ride, going voluntarily for a ride, or simply buying expensive food?

Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that no one has a right to make claims about any food which are not validated by science. The organic organisations know that very well, and I know that the question was addressed in the right hon. Gentleman's thorough and well researched report from the Select Committee on Agriculture. We assist in a variety of research into organic farming, and the Government recognise that there is clearly established research showing that organic farming offers certain environmental benefits. There is much less indication from research that it has benefits for the food itself. If organic bodies feel that there are such advantages, they can commission research to try to justify their claims.

Ms Debra Shipley: Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents want the choice of organic food? Will he join me in welcoming the twentyfold increase in funding for organic conversion since the Conservatives were in power? My constituents definitely want such funding because they want a choice of food.

Mr. Morley: I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says. In the five years leading up to our review of the organic scheme, about 400 farmers converted to organic production within five years; in the last year alone, 1,800 farmers have converted. The Government are committed to supporting consumer choice and those farmers who want to diversify their business by taking advantage of the organic market.

Mr. Tim Yeo: In view of the concerns of many organic farmers about the threat to the integrity of their produce from neighbouring genetically modified crops, will the Government guarantee that the commercial planting of such crops will not be allowed until English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation, has confirmed that they are environmentally safe?

Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a three-year moratorium on the commercial planting of genetically modified crops. That is to evaluate the potential impact on the environment, along with other matters, which is being carefully and independently researched. The Government have made it clear that if there is evidence of problems, we will reconsider the length of the commercial moratorium.

Stewardship Agreements

Joan Ruddock: What plans he has to increase the area of farmed land subject to countryside stewardship agreements. [146778]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a substantial increase in the countryside stewardship budget in December 1999. As part of the England rural development programme, £500 million is allocated to the scheme over the


seven-year period 2000–06. Each year, we will be accepting roughly double the number of applications that we did in 1999.

Joan Ruddock: May I tell my hon. Friend how important the countryside stewardship scheme is to those of us who live in cities and who greatly value the conservation of landscape and wildlife in rural areas? Will he confirm that spending under this Government on such schemes has trebled? Will he also confirm that, in terms of public support for farmers, it is further proof, if any were needed, that the Tory party can no longer claim to be the friend of the farmer?

Mr. Morley: I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend's point. The budget has increased by the amount that she claims. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to the countryside, to the people who live and work there and to the taxpayer, who pays for the schemes. The schemes are good news for all our objectives. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, compared with 1996–97, when spending on countryside stewardship was £10.9 million, by 2006–07, under our projected budget, the Government will be spending £126 million. That will be more than a tenfold increase—a commitment to the countryside unlike that of the previous Administration.

Mr. Tim Boswell: As the Minister who had the privilege of launching the countryside stewardship scheme, I am delighted that progress is being made. However, will the Minister tell us when the backlog of payments under existing schemes will be cleared?

Mr. Morley: I was discussing that very point —ensuring that payments are made to those who are part of the countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive area schemes—in one of the regional service centres yesterday. There has been a computer problem. I understand that it has been largely resolved, and that the vast majority of payments are now being made.

Mr. David Taylor: May I tell my hon. Friend that throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s I had the good fortune to live in a house that overlooked open countryside in which hedgerows were a prominent feature? However, they were steadily uprooted as a result of farm practices and the inducements of the then Governments. Is my hon. Friend confident that the countryside stewardship scheme, which I believe has restored about 6,000 miles of hedgerow, will continue even further to reverse the tragic losses of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?

Mr. Morley: I am confident of that. Farmers have been taking advantage of the countryside stewardship scheme and have been restoring hedgerows. Many have been planted over recent years. As my hon. Friend rightly said, about 6,000 miles of hedgerow have been reinstated. The advantage of stewardship is that we can adapt it to changing circumstances. We have introduced the new arable stewardship pilot scheme. The increasing budget means that we can further extend various aspects of the scheme, to the advantage both of those who live in the countryside and of those who want to see it protected.

Mr. Colin Breed: What can the Minister say to the Hosking brothers of South Hams, who

have been turned down once again for countryside stewardship funding, despite exemplary farming practices which they have pursued for many years? Does he agree that the focus on paying for improvements in standards rather than on standards themselves has real disadvantages for conscientious farmers who have taken it upon themselves to engage in best practice to meet environmental standards? Would not such farmers be better off if they had bulldozed their hedges, ploughed up pastures, filled in ponds, and then applied for funds to repair the damage?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman has a point. It is true that the priority of the scheme is to reinstate lost habitats and introduce features that have been lost. It is right to have priorities, and I am sure that Members would accept that we need to get maximum gains from the budget in relation to the benefits that the scheme is paying for. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that conscientious farmers, many of whom have kept important environmental, wildlife and landscape features because they are committed to conservation, are at a disadvantage owing to the way in which the scheme works.
The priority can be justified, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in 2003, we are having a mid-term review of such schemes and the way they operate. That is an opportunity to look at how we can address problems of that kind, bearing in mind the fact that, under this Government, there will be a continually rising spend on the budget for those schemes.

Dairy Supply Chain

Mr. Eric Martlew: What steps he is taking to improve co-operation in the dairy supply chain. [146779]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government encourage all involved in the dairy industry to work together to bring about an improvement in the dairy supply chain. Last November we set up the milk taskforce as part of the Government's action plan for the long-term development of agriculture. It is seeking to identify methods of beneficial collaboration along the supply chain, from the milk producer through to the retailer and consumer.

Mr. Martlew: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. When I visit the Nestlé creamery in my constituency tomorrow, I am bound to be asked why there is still a ban on the export of dairy products to Saudi Arabia when there is no justification for it. I should be grateful if the Government informed us of progress on that. There is no doubt that farmers in my constituency and throughout the country are not getting a fair price for their milk at present. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government are doing to achieve co-operation between dairy farmers and retailers to ensure that the dairy fanners get a decent price and the retailers remain competitive?

Ms Quin: I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns about the position of dairy farmers in his area and the concerns that he raised about the unjustified Saudi ban on dairy


products from this country, and, indeed, from other countries in the European Union. On the Saudi ban, we have made repeated representations to the Saudi Government: the ban has no basis in science and has certainly not been justified by the Saudis in relation to any risk analysis.
The most recent contact was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who discussed the issue on a visit to Riyadh in January. We will continue to press the issue. The fact that the Saudis have recently extended the ban in the wake of BSE concerns in the European Union is not helping, but we will continue to make the case, which, we believe, is extremely powerful. Encouraging co-operation and collaboration in the dairy supply chain is an important issue, and the taskforce that I mentioned is to report by the end of March.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: While the Minister talks about reviews and taskforces, is she aware that, over the last 12 months, the income of dairy farmers has dropped by 21 per cent.? Is she aware that 16 per cent. of all dairy farms have gone out of business since her Government came to power? Is she also aware that, from 1998 to June 1999, more than 5,000 dairy farm workers left the industry? Does she not realise that under her stewardship, the dairy chain has been broken?

Ms Quin: The dairy chain has certainly not been broken; I listed the number of measures that, by contrast with the previous Government, we have taken to encourage collaboration in that chain. I do not underestimate in any way the difficulties facing dairy farmers. None the less, Government have introduced a large number of measures, including the abolition of dairy hygiene inspection charges, agrimonetary compensation—which we gave in full to dairy producers—securing the retention of the school milk subsidy, and removing the weight limit on cattle over 30 months old. All those things were urged on us by dairy farmers, and we have responded positively to them.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that the industry has faced major changes since the demise of the Milk Marketing Board, Milk Marque, and subsequently. Does she feel that the industry is now in a position to go for high value-added milk and dairy products to meet the needs of consumers in this country, thus ensuring that milk producers get the best value for their milk?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend highlights an important issue. There are now encouraging signs regarding the organisation of the market and the response given by some of the companies to the challenges imposed on them by the findings of the Competition Commission. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that the companies could become involved in processing, as such involvement is an important means of adding value to products in the way that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Richard Livsey: What will the Minister do to encourage co-operation in dairying? Dairy Crest has salami-sliced jobs in west Wales and Cardiff, where 550 jobs have been lost from the industry. A plant lies empty in Whitland, although it

could perfectly well sustain the jobs. Will she please help the dairy industry to restore those jobs and to make organic and environmentally friendly products in Wales?

Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the initiative for some of those matters lies primarily with the Secretary for Agricultural and Rural Development in the Welsh Assembly. I assure him that the Government discuss the dairy sector in meetings with devolved Ministers, in order to share ideas and to encourage greater collaboration on the dairy supply chain throughout the United Kingdom. The rural development scheme contains a number of measures that are of interest to the dairy industry and which it should consider. Currently, however, price is the main issue. Despite some recent and welcome increases, prices remain depressed for dairy producers.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What his priorities are for the 2002 review of the common fisheries policy. [146780]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government wish to see the maintenance of key features of the present arrangements such as national quotas based on relative stability and access restrictions within national six and 12-mile limits. At the same time, we want to secure improvements to make the CFP a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks. That includes enhancing the regional dimension, integrating environmental considerations more fully and reducing discards.

Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give a commitment to fishermen that no other countries will fish in the no-fishing zones? Our fishermen are a bit cheesed off, as we keep to every dot and comma of European law, while our competitors—our partners, I should say—are flouting it to their advantage.

Mr. Morley: Claims are not always borne out by the facts, but I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance: I am confident that we will ensure in negotiations on the review of 2002 that our six and 12-mile exclusive fishing limits remain. Indeed, I intend to argue that they should be a permanent feature of our national limits. I am confident that we will achieve that outcome, as we have been engaging with our European neighbours and have adopted a consensus approach to the matter.
Our approach contrasts with that of the Conservative party, which has unworkable policies on fishing. In last week's debate on fisheries, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), made it clear that the Conservative party will be unelectable if it pursues its half-baked proposals.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: How can the Parliamentary Secretary have the gall to speak about making the common fisheries policy a more effective instrument for conservation, when it has been a conservation disaster? Would he not be better employed facing up to what he acknowledged in opposition—that it


is only by obtaining control of our own waters that we will ever be able to conserve stocks, as well as the British fishing industry?

Mr. Morley: When it comes to issues such as enforcement, we have control of our own waters. We need to ensure that the necessary enforcement is provided. Hon. Members may like to consider the location of the fishing grounds specified in the recent cod recovery programme. Almost all the most important cod fishing grounds for our country are currently outside our national limits. Unless we have a European mechanism for dealing with conservation, we will have no influence on matters that are vital to our industry. That is the mistake that the Conservatives are making: they are considering narrow national interests, rather than the long-term interests of our fishing industry.

Mr. Frank Doran: My hon. Friend has made it clear that he understands Conservative party policy well. Conservative Members would withdraw from the common fisheries policy, effectively make a unilateral declaration of independence in the North sea and the channel, and enter into complex negotiations over access, which our fishermen have had for decades, if not centuries—

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must ask about ministerial, not Opposition policy.

Mr. Doran: At a time when the fishing industry is facing its most serious crisis in decades, can the Parliamentary Secretary imagine a more serious threat to its future than Conservative policy?

Mr. Morley: I cannot imagine a more serious threat. I should like to know the exact details of the policy, because last week's debate revealed that it would not involve non-UK vessels leaving our waters, or returning the quotas of non-UK fishermen to British fishermen. It would lead to a loss of UK influence on fisheries control and management. The Opposition's policy is half-baked, ill thought out and undeliverable.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the uncertainty with which many fishermen regard European negotiations was increased with the release of documents under the 30-year rule? They revealed that, in European negotiations about fishing in a wider UK context, fishermen would be regarded as expendable. He and I can remember more recent European negotiations when fishing interests were subordinated to other objectives.
What is the Parliamentary Secretary's perspective? When entering into negotiations, does he regard relative stability as an essential, without which there can be no common fisheries policy? Will he persuade the Government to subordinate other European objectives to fishing, for a change?

Mr. Morley: I believe that relative stability is vital and that we need to maintain it after 2002. I am confident that we can do that, because it is in our country's interest and that of other countries. As for the hon. Gentleman's

comments about the fishing industry being expendable, the documents related to a previous, Conservative Government. They do not represent the Government's view. We have given the fishing industry probably unprecedented involvement in making decisions on issues that are important to its future.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend doubtless knows the strength of feeling in Grimsby and Cleethorpes about the impact of no-fishing zones on income and jobs. Is he sympathetic to calls for compensation for loss of income? What will he do to get money from the Treasury to further that aim?

Mr. Morley: It is difficult to grant compensation for limited closures to protect fish stocks that have been damaged by fishing. However, I accept that the fishing industry faces structural problems. I met industry representatives this week to discuss ways in which the Government can help with the long-term problems that they face.
In relation to the cod recovery programme for the north-east ports, I stress to my hon. Friend that the prawn grounds have been kept open and that the inshore fishing industry's interests have been protected. There is a balance to be struck between protecting fish stocks and ensuring that our industry has fishing opportunities. I believe that we have got that balance right.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the UK industry is now in crisis owing to swingeing quota cuts imposed by the common fisheries policy and the high price of fuel, and that the problem has been exacerbated by the recently announced cod recovery programme in the North sea? Given that financial support by Spain and France for their fishermen is under European Commission scrutiny as a possible breach of competition rules, how exactly does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to give financial support to our fishing industry in the short term?

Mr. Morley: Structural measures are available; funds are available in our structural programme. Regional programmes can also assist fishing ports. We must explore all those methods. There is also decommissioning, and consideration of whether there is an argument for reducing the capacity in the UK fleet. Those measures are under discussion.
I accept that policies have financial implications, and some funds are available. I note that financial commitments are not forthcoming from the Opposition. Given their pledge to make cuts of £16 billion in public expenditure, it is difficult for them to make such commitments.

Farm Animal Welfare

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What recent representations he has received concerning the impact of agricultural trade liberalisation on farm animal welfare. [146782]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I have received a number of such representations. We support the European Commission in its recent formal proposal to the World Trade Organisation, which explicitly calls for animal welfare to be considered in trade liberalisation negotiations. The proposal was tabled by the EU Commission in Geneva in December, with the unanimous support of EU member states.

Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it would be a disaster if trade liberalisation were to mean that UK livestock was exported to countries with lower animal welfare standards? Will he give the House an assurance that Britain will be at the forefront of EU efforts to place this matter high on the agenda in the next WTO round of negotiations?

Mr. Morley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The issue has been raised by the UK and the European Union. It did not feature in the previous World Trade Organisation talks, and it is a welcome step forward that it will now do so.
In relation to the higher standards being implemented by UK and European Union farmers, consideration is given to issues of quality standards in the context of globalisation and liberalisation of trade. It is legitimate that those issues be raised in the context of the WTO talks, and they will be.

Mr. Tim Yeo: In the context of moves towards more trade liberalisation, do the Government share the concerns of many poultry farmers that some imported poultry may have been reared using growth-promoting drugs that have been banned throughout Europe on health grounds? Are there any circumstances in which the Government would consider blocking such imports?

Mr. Morley: Under this Government, we now have an independent body—the Food Standards Agency—responsible for monitoring the safety and quality of food coming into this country. Quality standards are monitored in the UK and throughout the EU, with further inspections of plants in third countries. If the FSA has evidence of a problem, it will make recommendations to the Government, who will have no hesitation in acting on them.

Kali Mountford: Farmers in my constituency have no problem keeping within the guidelines for animal welfare. They keep their livestock to a very high standard, but are concerned about the quality of imports. What advice does my hon. Friend the Minister have for those farmers on informing consumers

of the high quality of animal welfare in this country, and advising them how to make decisions when buying their meat?

Mr. Morley: A number of quality assurance schemes are already in place, supported by a range of bodies, including the red tractor standard supported by the National Farmers Union. Consumers should consider that information carefully. The Government are keen to ensure that consumers have as much information as possible, so that they can make informed choices and use consumer power to support our producers, who are applying the very high standards that people want.

Agrimonetary Compensation

Sir Robert Smith: When he intends to reach a decision on the payment of agrimonetary compensation to British farmers. [146783]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The final figure will not be known until later this month. However, the amount available is likely to be about £200 million. We have until 30 April to decide. Since 1997, the Government will have paid £629 million in agrimonetary compensation, at a cost of £455 million to the United Kingdom taxpayer.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for his answer, as far as it goes, and recognise that some money has been paid in the past.
The message from the farmers whom I met in Alford and Stonehaven last week—confirmed by figures from the Ministry showing a fall in farm incomes—is that they would like an end to at least one element of their uncertainty as soon as possible. Will the Government make a commitment, in principle, to recognise that a mechanism is available to alleviate the currency problems that the farmers face, and that they are willing to access the money involved as soon as possible to alleviate that uncertainty?

Mr. Brown: The Government recognise that such a mechanism is available. We have made extensive use of it, both on the mandatory side—it is worth reminding the House that this Government negotiated the mandatory element of agrimonetary compensation—and on the discretionary side. We have made use of the instrument when times have been very difficult for farmers, particularly in the livestock sector.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Now that the euro has regained about 10 per cent. of its value against the pound, what effect will that have on the money available in agrimonetary compensation? More generally, does not that rise mean much better support prices and better market prices? Indeed, could not it herald the turnaround in the fortunes of agriculture?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. However, the calculations are of course historic, so they relate to where the euro was rather than to where it is


going, although he is right to say that a strengthening of the euro would be to the advantage of United Kingdom agriculture.

Mr. Simon Thomas: In the light of the facts that dairy farmers in Wales last year earned as little as £3,000, that further money is available in agrimonetary compensation, which the Minister accepts, and that the figures are historic and reflect the lack of support payments to farmers over the past few years, will he now give farming industries in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom the assurance that the Government will receive every penny possible despite the Fontainebleau agreement, which was negotiated by the Conservatives?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the previous Conservative Government's Fontainebleau arrangements because those arrangements put the cost of agrimonetary compensation primarily on the shoulders of the British taxpayer. The issue of further agrimonetary payments is under consideration by the Government and a decision will be made, as it usually is, in—[Interruption.] I cannot tell whether Conservative Members, who are shouting at me, are making the case for membership of the euro or for devaluation of sterling, but it is clearly one of the two. No doubt a Conservative Front Bencher will intervene in a moment to say which.
In answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), when we considered the circumstances of the dairy industry for the previous agrimonetary round, we drew down every penny we could in recognition of the difficult circumstances. I know that averages are always held to be unfair, but that decision is worth £900 per dairy farmer.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a typical livestock farmer has benefited by between £1,000 and £1,500 through agrimonetary compensation? Will he consider the fact that an increase in that would benefit farmers who are in need this year and also confirm what the previous Government paid in agrimonetary compensation?

Mr. John Bercow: That is not enough money to heat a swimming pool.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Buckingham is right. The sum paid in agrimonetary compensation under the previous Conservative Government would not pay to heat anything at all, because they did not pay out a penny in agrimonetary compensation—not a single penny. [Interruption.] I do not know how I managed to stir Opposition Front Benchers from their usual lethargy, but, for the sake of the record, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is shouting, "Three months, three months!" Before the general election, it would have been possible for the Conservative Government to commit to just under half a billion pounds of agrimonetary compensation, if they had so chosen. They did not commit to a penny.
It is worth reminding those who follow these debates that, although Conservative Members now call for substantial extra public expenditure on agrimonetary compensation, they also call for overall reductions in

public expenditure and tax cuts at the same time. I would be as interested as everyone else to hear how on earth that could be done.

Hunting with Dogs

Mr. Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of the impact of a ban on hunting with dogs on arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock. [146784]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Burns report considered that, in the event of a ban on hunting, farmers would lose a large part of the collection service for fallen stock currently offered by hunts. Farmers would then need to use an alternative disposal method, such as the rendering or knackery services or incineration. Proposed European Union rules could also affect the disposal routes available to farmers. We are in close touch with the disposal and farming industries over possible future arrangements.

Mr. Luff: The Minister has, for the second time, honestly admitted that the Government value the service provided by hunts to farmers in connection with fallen stock, but, given the increasing problems in disposing of stock to which she alluded, including on-farm burial and incineration, is not it time for the Government to produce an authoritative figure for the cost that would be imposed on British farmers were hunting with dogs ever to be banned? Will she at least admit that that figure would be substantial?

Ms Quin: The Government commissioned the Burns report precisely to look at those issues, and I commend its findings in that regard. However, the position is uneven across the country, depending partly on the geographical distribution of hunts, and partly on the availability of other services. Given that situation and the fact that there are European Union rules and proposals in the pipeline, it is important, as I said in my answer to the hon. Gentleman, to discuss with farmers and the existing industry how best to move forward.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Narey Reforms

Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What effect the Narey reforms have had in expediting the prosecution of offences. [146805]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Early indications are that the Narey reforms, brought about through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, are having a substantial effect on reducing delay and improving efficiency. They have been implemented in two stages. The first stage, which was introduced in November 1999, led to all defendants appearing before a court within days of being charged, rather than four or five weeks later, as


was previously the case. That enables defendants who wish to plead guilty at the first hearing to be sentenced very quickly, often the day after charge.
The second stage, which came into effect just over a fortnight ago, ensures that defendants charged with the most serious cases, such as murder and rape, appear in front of a Crown court judge in little more than a week after charge, following a single magistrates court appearance.

Mrs. Lawrence: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. I am sure that, like me, he realises that in more serious cases, the delays before the final resolution is achieved often cause extra distress to the individuals or the families concerned. What overall reduction in delay will be offered by a speedy Crown court appearance?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right that delay has an effect, for example, on victims and witnesses. The idea is to move such cases into the Crown court quickly. The experience in the past fortnight has been good. For example, a case was reported to me yesterday involving a rape committed on 19 January. The case was heard in the Exeter Crown court a couple of days ago, and the person will be sentenced shortly. Such swift treatment of serious cases is to be welcomed. I shall be visiting my hon. Friend's Crown Prosecution Service area in the next week or so, and I hope to get good news about swift justice there, as well.

Mr. John Burnett: The Narey review stressed the importance of an efficient and effective Crown Prosecution Service. At the last Solicitor-General's questions, I mentioned to the hon. and learned Gentleman that additional funding had been made available to the Crown Prosecution Service, but he knows as well as I do that the morale of the CPS has been rock bottom. I should like the Solicitor-General to answer the question that I asked him last time: will he cause to be conducted an independent review of the morale and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service? If so, when, and will he put the results of that review in the public domain?

The Solicitor-General: I do not accept that CPS morale is rock bottom. There were problems last year, but there has been a significant increase in funding—about 23 per cent. nationwide in the next year. The hon. Gentleman's area has hit the jackpot, as it will receive a 14 per cent. increase in real funding next year. Overall, nationwide, that means some 500 more people in the CPS to carry out prosecutions. There will be a certain number in the hon. Gentleman's area, as well. There was a problem of stress. The CPS management will re-examine that in the coming year.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. Bearing in mind that part two of the Narey reforms is now coming into effect, will my hon. and learned Friend learn the lesson of the procedures that took place in Northampton and other places during the experimental period, where it was found that if the process went ahead too quickly, the case that finally came to trial was deficient from the prosecution's point of view, because not all the statements and forensic evidence had been obtained? Although

speedy justice is welcome, one must be careful that the full case goes before the court, not a partial case, which can lead to a miscarriage of justice either way.

The Solicitor-General: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is always tension between speedy justice on the one hand and the rights of defendants on the other. Certainly, cases must not move so quickly that the rights of defendants are prejudiced.

Criminal Justice

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the average length of time between arrest and trial. [146806]

Mr. George Mudie: If he will make a statement on the length of time the CPS takes to bring cases to court. [146810]

The Solicitor-General: The average length of time between the commencement of proceedings and trial, or guilty plea, is reducing. The latest available data on all defendants in the magistrates courts shows that the average time fell to 49 days in September 2000. As for the Crown court, the average time between charge and committal for trial is also falling. The average time for adult defendants fell to 89 days in September 2000. The figures for youth defendants show a reduction to 85 days between arrest and committal.
The Crown Prosecution Service has made a substantial contribution to the achievement of those results. I am confident that the additional funding that I have mentioned, and other changes, will maintain this encouraging progress.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his characteristically comprehensive reply.
Although I accept that a reduction in the average length of time between arrest and trial is an important policy objective, does the hon. and learned Gentleman in turn accept that it is less important than the pursuit of justice and the nature of the trial itself? Will he belatedly acknowledge that the proposed removal of the right to trial by jury in a number of very important cases is a gross affront to justice, and that even at this stage the Government should withdraw their disgraceful proposal?

The Solicitor-General: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the mode-of-trial proposals, which concern only a small number of cases. As for his point about quick justice, under the last Government the time was 142 days for persistent young offenders, which was simply unacceptable. It did not bring home to wrongdoers the need for them to change their ways. We have now reduced the time to under 100 days—an average of about 94 days nationwide, although in some areas it is much lower than that. The idea is to bring persistent young offenders before the courts quickly, so that they have to address their wrongdoing. I think that that is the right policy.

Mr. Mudie: Will my hon. and learned Friend comment on the time between arrest and trial of youngsters, particularly in the light of a recent case in my


constituency? A young lad abused an antisocial behaviour order within a week of its imposition. That was last March, but the case was brought to trial only a few weeks ago. Does that indicate that our pledge is being met, or does it indicate—more interestingly, and more worryingly—a lack of interest in the success of ASBOs on the part of the CPS?

The Solicitor-General: It certainly does not indicate a lack of interest. We take antisocial behaviour orders very seriously.
I cannot explain why that case took so long without knowing more about it. In some cases, the offending of persistent young offenders is linked with that of adult offenders; such cases might go to the Crown court. That might explain the delay, but if my hon. Friend gives me details I will look into the matter.
In my hon. Friend's area, the average time is down to the national average of about 94 days. That is good news, but I reiterate that we are driving the figure down even more. We must meet the 71-day pledge, and we are on track to do so later this year.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied with the time that it takes to get a case that is referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal?

The Solicitor-General: That does not fall within my responsibility. There are a number of possible reasons for the delay. Such cases are often extremely complicated, and some—including the one in which the hon. Gentleman has an interest—are historic, often requiring detailed investigation. Generally, however, we are trying to speed up justice, and we are achieving that aim.

Mr. David Kidney: The CPS is one of many contributors to the prosecution process. Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there is still scope for improved co-ordination and co-operation between all those contributors to speed up cases?

The Solicitor-General: One of the beneficial effects of the persistent young offender pledge and of other changes, such as the Narey changes, which I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), is that the different agencies are now working together. Under the previous Administration, they were very much autonomous institutions. They now have to work together, and they are working together. Recently, as my hon. Friend knows, I visited the CPS in his constituency and saw how successfully it is working with police. Under the Glidewell changes, which are now being rolled out nationwide, prosecutors are often with the police in police stations making quick decisions.

Crown Prosecution Service

31. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What procedures the CPS follows prior to making a decision not to proceed with a prosecution which is at an advanced stage. [146807]

The Solicitor-General: Crown prosecutors review each case on its own facts and merits in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. The process of review is a continuing process; fresh evidence may become available which alters the prosecutor's assessment of a case, or the public interest considerations may change. Wherever possible, Crown prosecutors will discuss significant changes to the charges, or stopping the case, with police before a decision is made.
Attorney-General's guidelines have just been introduced on the procedure to be followed by advocates when decisions are taken at court. Those guidelines emphasise the importance of prosecutors speaking with the victim or the victim's family so that their views and interests can be taken into account.

Mr. Mackinlay: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether the Crown's decision not to offer evidence at the trial, on 8 June 1999, of Linda Watson and Amanda Williams for the murder of Richard Watson had anything to do with the fact that the security and intelligence services had some interest in the case? If so, was that interest disclosed to the Police Complaints Authority when it pursued that botched prosecution?

The Solicitor-General: I have written to my hon. Friend about that case. Certainly as far as I know there was no involvement of the security and intelligence services whatsoever. As I explained to him, the CPS made the decision not to continue simply because the prosecution's forensic evidence did not amount to proof. The defence produced forensic evidence, and frankly, our evidence could not match it. On such a basis, as I said in my reply to him, the prosecution must be stopped. That is in the interests of defendants.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Solicitor-General accept that victims and victims' families are frequently bewildered by the lack of information on the reasons for either dropping or reducing charges in given cases? Does he accept that the Opposition's proposal that there should be a named CPS officer or lawyer to act as a point of contact between victims or victims' families and the CPS is a good one? Would it not eradicate as far as is humanly possible the sense of bewilderment facing victims and their families? I am sure that he is a reasonable man. Therefore, if he accepts our proposal, why does he not implement it?

The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that the Opposition are stealing our policies—because that is precisely what is in our proposals that will be rolled out later this year. There have already been pilot projects to test our proposals whereby the CPS will be the point of contact for victims, victims' families and others in relation to decisions on charges. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that, often in the past, that has not happened and people have been bewildered about why, for example, charges have been dropped or pleas have been accepted.
As I said, the national scheme will be rolled out later this year. Under the Attorney-General's guidelines, which I mentioned earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), if a case is there for trial and a plea is accepted, victims and their families must be informed so that they can have an input.

Chile

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What plans he has to start proceedings relating to the deaths of William Beausire and Father Michael Woodward in Chile. [146808]

The Solicitor-General: It will not be a surprise to my hon. Friend when I say that I have no plans. Many people, including William Beausire and Father Michael Woodward, were tortured and murdered under General Pinochet's regime in Chile in the 1970s. Our courts, however, do not have jurisdiction to try those responsible for those appalling acts. As I said in my statement to the House on General Pinochet, on 2 March 2000, the criminal offences both of torture—which is contrary to section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—and of hostage-taking under the Taking of Hostages Act 1982, which otherwise might apply, were not retrospective and could not be made to apply to matters such as the two deaths about which my hon. Friend inquires.

Mr. Corbyn: I am disappointed with that answer. Also disappointing was the Department's attitude to the possibility of holding a private prosecution of General

Pinochet when he was held in this country, and to supporting an application in the Chilean courts. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a case has been successfully deposited in the High Court in Chile regarding Charles Horman, a US national who was also murdered in that country? That case is listed for hearing. Will not he re-examine the mountain of evidence relating to the cases mentioned in my question, and the new evidence from a Chilean navy officer who witnessed the torture of Father Woodward?
The two victims will never return. Will not my hon. and learned Friend also meet their relatives, and see what practical legal support can be given to the families to help them mount a serious case against Pinochet and all his henchmen in the Chilean courts, where hundreds of such cases are at last being mounted?

The Solicitor-General: Under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, it is possible for authorities in this country to assist prosecutors in Chile, and that might well happen.
In addition, what this country did in relation to Senator Pinochet has had a catalytic effect in Chile. That is a good thing. Secondly, were these appalling crimes to occur today—God forbid that they would—the cases could be tried in a court here.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House give the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business of the House is as follows:
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Failure of the Government to Address Social Exclusion, Poverty and Job Losses in Wales" on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru, followed by a debate on personal care for the elderly on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill.
Motion on the Draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc) Order 2001.
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Homes Bill.
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
FRIDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
Remaining stages of the Capital Allowances Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill.
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—We hope that there will be a debate on the report of the BSE inquiry by Lord Phillips on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 16 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 14 February, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee A relating to the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 14 February 2001:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 5196/99, Control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 23-xxxi (1999–2000) and HC 34-xiii (1998–99).
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on Thursdays for the next four weeks will be as follows:
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Debate on social security fraud.
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Debate on the reports from the Education and Employment Committee on standards and quality in education and the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.
THURSDAY 22 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
THURSDAY 1 MARCH—Debate on the report from the Health Committee on provision of NHS mental health services.
Perhaps I can take this opportunity to remind the House that not only will the House not be sitting on Friday 16 February, but it will not return until Monday 26 February.

Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. It comes as something of a surprise to find that after just a week the Government have changed their mind about holding a debate on Thursday 8 February on standards and privileges. That is an important debate which, as the right hon. Lady knows, has the support of those on the Conservative Benches. What has happened in the past week to change her mind about that being an appropriate subject for debate by the House? Is it that standards, as far as Ministers in this Government are concerned, are their own standards, and that privileges mean the exploitation of their office?
During the past week we have seen the Prime Minister dismiss a Cabinet Minister in the morning for not telling the truth, and tell the House in the afternoon, with tears in his eyes, that that is a tragedy, while two days later the Prime Minister's press secretary described that tragic figure as "detached" and "lacking focus". No one could describe the right hon. Lady as detached and lacking focus, so will she explain why we are to be deprived of that very important debate next Thursday?
May I also ask the right hon. Lady to explain why a debate on social security fraud scheduled for next Thursday is to be taken in Westminster Hall and has not been allocated time on the Floor of the House? It is a very important debate, not least because since the Government came to office they have made no fewer than 46 announcements about tackling benefit fraud. It was a major pledge in their election manifesto, yet it is clear from parliamentary answers that social security fraud is out of control. The issue deserves the scrutiny and consideration of the whole House in the Chamber, rather than being kicked into Westminster Hall in the hope that it will not be noticed.
I refer the right hon. Lady to the request that I made on 21 December last year. There is a need for a debate on the intelligence services; she will be aware that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are very anxious to have such a debate. Last year, the Government were late in holding that debate and promised that it would be held on a more timely occasion in this Session. Will the right hon. Lady look very carefully for a slot for that debate in the near future?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We can't tell the hon. Lady, it's a secret.

Mrs. Browning: There is another secret in which I am even more interested; perhaps the right hon. Lady can help us with it. Can she prevail upon the Chancellor to disclose publicly the date of the Budget? We are now into February and the date must be in the Chancellor's diary.


Could I prevail upon her to persuade him to disclose that date so that next week when she comes to the Dispatch Box she can share that information with us?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement in the House early next week on the public-private partnership that the Government have proposed for the tube? We have recently heard from Mr. Kiley—a man who knows something about these matters—that the Government's proposal is undeliverable. If that is the case, the House would like to discuss the matter in some detail.

Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Lady asked me about the provisional business that I had announced. I always make it very plain that provisional business is exactly that.
The hon. Lady is right that we have moved the debate that was originally proposed on standards and privileges. However, she seems to have overlooked something, which I think that the Conservative Members who raised the matter last week also overlooked. When we eventually have that debate, it will be on the recent report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. As I said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who raised the matter last week, I am very mindful of the prerogatives of the Chair to decide what is in order. However, as the report does not deal with the behaviour of Ministers, because that is not a matter for the Register of Members' Interests, and their conduct, it would be hard to argue that it would be in order to raise such matters.
I think that the hon. Lady is clutching at straws, in a desperate attempt to find yet another excuse to raise the events of the past 10 days or so. However, I can tell her of the two other factors that have led the Government to decide to move the debate. First, we are ready to deal with the remaining stages of legislation, which, as she will know, has to be a priority for the Government. Secondly, I understand that the Committee is continuing to take evidence from Conservative Members on the report that it is proposed that we should discuss. The Chair of the Committee let me know that although it was obviously a matter for discussion, there would nevertheless be merit in letting the Committee finish taking evidence before the House discussed the matter. That is the view of the Committee's Chairman, and it is obviously a legitimate point of view.
The hon. Lady asks me why we did not find time on the Floor of the House for the debate on fraud, which will be held in Westminster Hall. As she will remember, the Conservative party did not seek to hold that debate on the Floor of the House. Indeed, if it is such a vital matter and as neglected as she suggests, it is surprising that the Conservative party has not found the time to raise it, given that it has had several Opposition day debates already. Furthermore, she seems to have forgotten that we have introduced a Bill on social security fraud, so the notion that there is a lack of opportunity to discuss that matter seems somewhat flawed, to put it no higher than that.
I accept, of course, the need for a debate on the intelligence and security services, and the Government will seek to find time for one at some point. I cannot enlighten the hon. Lady about the date of the Budget, and I do not think that that is unreasonable.
The hon. Lady will know that there have been constant statements about the tube from Mr. Kiley and from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and that such matters are under discussion. No doubt when those discussions are at a more refined stage, there may be something to announce to the House.

Mr. Mackinlay: May I take the Leader of the House back to the reply that she gave me a couple of days ago? I reminded her of the Prime Minister's promise to the House on 13 July, that we would have a free vote on the proposals in the Liaison Committee report, "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive". She said:
I am entirely familiar with the Hansard reference that my hon. Friend quotes. I am familiar also with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said because I was sitting two places away from him at the time."—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 171].
I was watching her when he made that statement. She grimaced because he was speaking off-message; it was not part of the script. The fact is that the Prime Minister unequivocally gave an undertaking that we would have a free vote on the matter. No other construction can be put on it but that we would have that vote this side of the general election. There would be no purpose in having it after the general election, because the whole idea was to have those measures in place when we return—if we return—after the general election. Will she think about that again?

Mrs. Beckett: With great respect to my hon. Friend, when he has already raised a matter some half a dozen times with me, there is no need to ask me to think about it again. I have thought about it repeatedly. He knows what my view is; I have expressed it, I hope, with clarity as well as with courtesy. I simply say that the position remains as I have told him on many occasions.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Did the Leader of the House notice that Conservative Members did not welcome the BSE debate? We on the Liberal Democrat Benches warmly welcome that debate, which is on an issue of huge importance to the countryside and particularly to the much damaged livestock industry. However, will a statement be made well in advance of that debate about the Government's response on BSE and to the Phillips report? Obviously, that it is extremely important.
Will a statement be made, and can we have a debate on the politicisation of the civil service, not just in relation to the role of Mr. Alastair Campbell, but more generally? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Cabinet Office and the Treasury have now admitted that civil servants have been used to calculate the cost of various Opposition policies, yet the House has not been given access to that information? Civil servants are doing a job at taxpayers' expense, yet we, who represent taxpayers, cannot question Ministers on the work being undertaken.
Given that the right hon. Lady is reviewing various matters in her role as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, will she review the arrangements for recording abstentions? She will be aware that, especially since the Queen's Speech, those on the Conservative Front Bench have been recommending abstentions so


regularly—indeed, they did so even last night—that we do not know whether Conservative Members are abstaining on principle or simply going home.

Mrs. Beckett: I really must take the hon. Gentleman to task for that foul slur. Given the massive number of occasions on which those on the Opposition Benches call for us to sit ever longer days and ever longer hours, it surely cannot be that they have gone home—even if they are not registering their numbers in vast quantities in the Division Lobby.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the BSE debate. I recognise that Liberal Democrat Members, at least, have raised that matter repeatedly. That is why I was anxious to give an indication as to when the Government hope to be able to schedule the debate. Of course, I understand the wish to see the Government's response in a timely period before that debate; that is partly why I stressed that the date I mentioned was when we hoped to hold the debate. The Government are anxious to put before the House the right combination of information, and, of course, to hold a debate on it.
The hon. Gentleman also asks about the politicisation of the civil service. On that, I have to take issue with him. The Prime Minister's official spokesman is on a special adviser contract and his role is in accordance with that contract. There is no suggestion of it being politicised or in any way outwith the rules.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the use of the Treasury to cost policies, but nothing whatever is new or untoward about that—it has happened since time immemorial. In consequence, it does not seem to me that the matter requires any special statement.
As for recording abstentions, I have already dealt with that issue. From my observations, the hon. Gentleman may be entirely right; a large number of Tory Members are not always here for the long hours that they claim to be in this place, but that—I am happy to say—is a matter for them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the terrible earthquake in India, and also in the south and south-east of Pakistan? Does she recall that, following similar earthquakes in Turkey, the relationship between Greece and Turkey improved considerably? Does she agree that a debate in the House might encourage India and Pakistan to work not only on their recovery programme, but on wider issues to their mutual advantage? That would have the support of the whole Commonwealth and, indeed, of the wider international community.

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It has often been said that the aftermath of the tragic events in Greece and Turkey was to encourage recognition of the degree to which they benefited from assisting each another. I entirely take his point that the same argument has validity in the case of India and Pakistan. At present, the great concentration of concern in both countries must be to deal with the aftermath of that appalling event. I hope, however, that in the long term, it will indeed have the effect suggested by my right hon. Friend, although I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on the matter at present.

Sir Norman Fowler: Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to the appalling plight of millions

of people in Africa suffering from HIV and AIDS. Recent figures have also shown a developing problem in this country, although, obviously, it is not on the same scale. May we have a debate in the House on Aids and will the Government make a statement on what they are doing to help to combat the challenge both in this country and overseas?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot find time for an early debate on AIDS, although as we are hoping to take the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill on Wednesday 14 February, the right hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to air the subject during debate on the issues raised in that Bill. I take his point that it is a matter of great concern in Africa. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate, but I recommend to him the attractions of Westminster Hall.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Could the Leader of the House arrange a debate on admission policies to primary schools? That is a problem for many local education authorities at present—including mine in Durham. Four and five-year-old children living in Coxhoe in my constituency—a village that has expanded over the years—cannot obtain places at the local school because the maximum class size is 30. The children have to attend local schools two or three miles away where there are many empty places. It is not acceptable for four and five-year-olds to have to travel such distances in bad weather because they cannot get a place in a local school; there are sound educational reasons why they should not. I fully support the Government's policy of having a maximum of 30 children in a class, but can we have a debate on the issue to see whether a solution can be found?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents who face those difficult circumstances. I recall that, in my city of Derby, a fast-developing new estate caused the same type of difficulties because sufficient provision for children had not been planned under the Conservative party.
My hon. Friend will know how much work the Government are doing to try to improve the position in education. For example, we have the highest number of teachers employed for more than a decade—7,000 more than there were in January 1998. He will also know of the substantial programme of capital investment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced recently.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the particular problems that my hon. Friend has identified in his constituency. However, I remind him that oral questions to the Department for Education and Employment will be held on Thursday next.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: When the Leader of the House replied to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the Prime Minister's promise of a free vote on the Liaison Committee report, "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive", might she not, for the sake of clarity and courtesy, have added the word "contempt"? There has been contempt for members of the Liaison Committee and contempt for the


House, which is owed a debate and a free vote on those measures. She should find Government time for such a debate.

Mrs. Beckett: I did.

Dr. Brian Iddon: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 181 on the price of industrial gas, which has almost doubled in recent months?
[That this House notes the near doubling in the price of industrial gas over the last 12 months and the detrimental effect this increase is having on energy intensive sectors of manufacturing industry; expresses concern about the operation of the gas supply interconnector between Bacton in East Anglia and Zeebrugge in Belgium, which links a de-regulated market in Britain with a continental market where the price of gas is still linked to the price of oil; views with alarm allegations of collusion between the gas supply companies; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ask the Office of Fair Trading to carry out a full scale investigation into the wholesale gas market.]
The price rise has been the last straw for a factory in my constituency that makes paper. It employs 170 people but, this week, it has announced its closure. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe makes a statement about that, so that hon. Members can fully understand the complex reasons for that huge hike in industrial gas prices?

Mrs. Beckett: I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend and his constituents. I know that others in industry are similarly affected. The Government are conscious of the importance of gas prices and of the impact of the recent rise, which, I understand, is primarily due to high oil prices. The Government take the view that, if anti-competitive activity is identified in this sector, they will not hesitate to refer the matter to the appropriate competition authorities. My hon. Friend might like to monitor developments with a view to making such information available to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe if he thinks that that is appropriate.

Sir George Young: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider the rather terse reply that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) about the Liaison Committee report? Will she reconsider what she said on Tuesday, when she made it clear that it was very unlikely that there would be a debate on the report before the end of this Parliament? Does she recognise that, if we do not take a decision in this Parliament and we want to set up the Select Committees quickly in the new Parliament, we will have to use the current system? Although she may be able to persuade the House on a free vote to retain the present system, it is not right for her to stifle both a debate and a vote on this important matter.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman has more cause than anyone to know that what I have said about a

free vote has not changed from the very beginning. He has asked me this question more often than most, although the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is seeking to catch up with his record. I take his point entirely that—if, as it may be, there is a general election some time in the next 18 months—it will be important for Select Committee appointments to be made speedily. I am not at all sure that a new system of making those appointments is likely to be speedier, but I certainly assure him that everyone will bear his remarks in mind.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the cuts being made by many Tory-controlled councils? In Calderdale, the Tory council proposed massive cuts to social services and education. It is attacking the weak and defenceless, yet it received a reasonable settlement. One of the worst cuts is to the Scope outreach service, which looks after elderly disabled people. The council is also scrapping free school milk, which is particularly mean, and increasing council tax by far more than the party promised in its election manifesto. It is about time that these people were exposed.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least because one of the moves that, in theory, everybody wants to see is towards a better balance between health and social service care, so that we can, in particular, care for the elderly in their own homes, as most of them would wish. She is right to point out that cuts in social services undermine that objective. She is also right to indicate that in the four years since the general election, the Government grant to local government has gone up by 14 per cent. in real terms, compared with a cut of 7 per cent. in the previous four years, so that stability in grant distribution and a substantial increase in investment mean that councils should be able to plan ahead for good services.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue, but my hon. Friend may find that the attractions of Westminster Hall beckon.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the opening exchanges after the statement by the Leader of the House, can she give an assurance that after three and three quarter years, we shall get a definitive statement on the Government's policy on the tube before the general election, so that we can verify whether their handling of the tube is actively intended to sacrifice Labour seats in London or whether it has some other motivation?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that most Tory Members, and perhaps even the right hon. Gentleman himself, would acknowledge that the underlying problems of London Underground are due to years of neglect and under-investment. Dialogue about the tube's future continues. As for when it can be concluded, obviously we all hope that that will be as soon as possible, but I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date.

Helen Jackson: The Leader of the House will be as keen as we are that Members are not kept here unnecessarily and that they do not have their time wasted. She will be aware that Hansard shows that three times this week the number of Members opposing a


Government motion in the No Lobby was zero. She may be interested to know that in the whole of the previous Session and up to Christmas in this Session that never happened. Does she believe that the Opposition are totally falling down on their job in that they call votes but fail to produce any of their Members in the Lobby?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which chimes in with the earlier point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). Of course, although it is open to any Member—or rather any two Members, since two names are required for the tellers—to call a Division, people have always wondered whether it is wise to call attention to the fact that support for the stance being adopted is as little as two Members. Although our procedures allow for that, I share my hon. Friend's view that it is perhaps a less than constructive use of time, but the Opposition do not seem to be very good at making constructive use of their time.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office to explain how equality and law and order issues arising from the Belfast agreement are being dealt with? One person who was out on licence was readmitted to prison because of perceived involvement in activities contrary to that licence. By contrast, another, a murderer, was released and has committed that crime again in murdering Trevor Kells, but he has not been called back under licence, although I understand that some of his republican colleagues have exercised their own summary justice. Surely the law of the land should be maintained.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I cannot undertake to ask a Northern Ireland Minister specifically to deal with the issues that he raises in the very near future. He will know, however, that there is shortly to be a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and he may find the opportunity within the parameters of that meeting to raise these issues.

Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend, after liaising with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, try to bring forward at an early date the student nurse review, especially with regard to bursaries? A group of colleagues and I met some student nurses at the recent south-west conference of Unison, and to a person they were saying, "Can we have the review brought forward and a debate to discuss how nurses can be properly rewarded to ensure that we get the proper number of nurses on our wards?"

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have already recruited significant extra numbers of nurses, and expanded the number of training places so that more potential nurses are coming forward. I understand his concern and I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I remind my hon. Friend that we hope to take the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill on 14 February. He may have an opportunity then to air these matters.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Leader of the House accept from me, as one who has been fairly

criticised by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, and therefore has some understanding of the difficult task that members of that Committee have to undertake, that by moving next Thursday's debate for what every objective observer will perceive as purely party political and partisan reasons, she has done much to undermine the integrity of the Committee? There is nothing that the right hon. Lady knows today about that debate that she did not know last Thursday. Moving the debate will give credence to those who think that it is a Committee with an in-built Labour majority that is acting on party political reasons. That is a tragedy for the Committee and a tragedy for the House.

Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not follow fully the point that I made earlier, which is that since— [Interruption.] I am mindful that it is for the Chair to determine what is in order. As the report that we would have been discussing, and which we may still have an opportunity to discuss, does not deal with the conduct of Ministers, it is difficult for me to see how that matter could possibly be in order. I do not see where the hon. Gentleman's point about partisan treatment of the Committee arises. I utterly reject his suggestion that the Government are seeking in any way to take, or have taken, action that will inadvertently affect the integrity of the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman's reference to the fact that the Committee has a Labour majority, as do all Select Committees, is somewhat unfortunate. All Select Committees reflect the pattern of the House. His reference to that was particularly unfortunate because he may have noticed that recently there has been a growing tendency in the press to refer to decisions of the Committee as being made by the Labour majority, when the Committee was unanimous. That undermines the integrity of the Committee.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I join the shadow Leader of the House in calling for an early debate on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ operations, especially as new Official Secrets Act legislation is to be brought forward? I ask my right hon. Friend to prevail upon my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary himself to reply to such a debate. That is the unanimous request of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot find time to schedule a debate in the near future. My hon. Friend will know of the considerable pressures on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's diary, inevitably often dictated by events elsewhere. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Jack: Last week, I asked the Leader of the House if she could find time for a debate on what was going on in the murky waters of the millennium dome. Those waters have got even muddier this week with press reports of the difficulties of Mr. Bourne, who is said to support the Government with personal donations, and is unable to find the money to buy the dome or to find some activity to go inside it. We also learn that further calls may be made on public funds to deal with expenses connected with the dome
We still have not had an opportunity to probe more thoroughly the role of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in determining what went in the dome. When can we have a debate on the matter so that we may know more clearly what is going on?

Mrs. Beckett: One of the few criticisms that I have not yet heard of the dome is that it is full of water. However, the issues surrounding the dome have been aired extensively in the House on many occasions and, no doubt, will be aired again in future. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on them in the near future.

Gillian Merron: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the tragic case of Mark Thorne, a young man in my constituency who was electrocuted while working at Fatty Arbuckle's, a fast-food restaurant in the city of Lincoln? The coroner returned a verdict of unlawful killing; clearly, this was a tragic and terrible case of employer negligence. Will my right hon. Friend press the Government to introduce legislation as soon as possible to make corporate killing an offence? The family of Mark Thorne want that and I strongly support its introduction.

Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents in their tragic loss and the terrible circumstances that led to the death of that young man. It will share her view that those difficult issues ought to be investigated thoroughly.
My hon. Friend will know that the Government recently issued a consultative document on corporate killing. I believe that the consultation period has now ended and the Government are studying the responses, which we take seriously and with which we will deal carefully. I will, however, draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Leader of the House agree that every school and local authority in England eagerly awaits the School Teachers Review Body's decision and that of the Government on how they will fund school teachers' pay awards this year? Is it not bizarre that last night there was agreement on the local government settlement, without the teachers' pay review award being included? Today, there was to be a statement at 1 o'clock, announcing the outcome of the teachers' pay review. That was suddenly pulled and it will now be made at 9.30 am tomorrow. Will the Leader of the House tell the House that there will be no statement about that on the "Today" programme tomorrow morning, and that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will come to the House at the start of business to make a statement on that incredibly important issue?

Mrs. Beckett: I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, of course, seek to make that announcement in the proper way. At present, I am not aware whether he hopes to make it through the medium of a written answer, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is perfectly in order. I do not recall whether any changes were made to today's

business; I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is correct about that. However, we are shortly to have an important statement on the steel industry and the entire House will think it proper that that statement is made today.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that we used to have some terrible local government financial settlements under the Conservatives. However, we did have lengthy debates on those inadequate settlements. Now we have better settlements for Derbyshire and other areas, but we do not have such lengthy debates. We had an inadequate set of debates last night, which lasted just three hours. Why cannot we have the best of both worlds—better settlements still for Derbyshire and long, full debates?

Mrs. Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point. He is quite right, and I know how strongly he and other Derbyshire Members have pressed those issues in the House over the years. I understand his regret that, last night, we had only two one-and-a-half hour debates on local government funding. He will know, I hope, that that was the result of objections from Conservative Back Benchers to the Government motion, which sought to provide more time for those debates. Whether their objections stem from the fact that they do not wish to discuss better settlements for local government is a matter for my hon. Friend to consider.

Mr. Christopher Chope: The Leader of the House keeps telling us that she cannot find time for this debate or that debate, but she could find time for all the debates if she was prepared to order the House to sit during half-term week. Is not it increasingly clear that Labour Members are trying to hide behind half-term week in order to deprive the public and the House of the chance to hold this awful Government to account?

Mrs. Beckett: The recommendation that the House should not sit during what is most schools' February half-term, if that were at all possible, was made by the all-party Modernisation Committee at a time when I was not one of its members. I believe that that recommendation, which was also proposed by the Jopling report, was unanimous. As for the suggestion that the Government are seeking to avoid the scrutiny of the House, we have provided 200 extra opportunities for debate in Westminster Hall, so that is a pretty ludicrous accusation.

Mr. Huw Edwards: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an urgent debate on the future of the steel industry, following this morning's announcement by Corus of 6,000 job losses—1,200 of which will occur in Llanwern, near my constituency—and the closure of Ebbw Vale? Does she agree that Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of Corus, has treated the House, the Government and the unions with contempt? Should not the matter be publicly and urgently debated in the House?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the serious concern that is felt by all hon. Members—a concern that is likely to be expressed when we move on to the next business. I am also conscious that my hon. Friend has had the forethought to secure a Westminster Hall debate, in which


I believe that he hopes to air the issues. I fear that I cannot undertake to find in Government time the opportunity for a special debate in the near future. However, I have little doubt that, as matters unfold, hon. Members will continue to press for various opportunities to scrutinise the unfortunate developments that have occurred. The Government have tried to engage the company in constructive discussion, but without the success that we would have liked.

Mr. John Redwood: I was touched by the right hon. Lady's explanation of why she took the extraordinary decision to cancel Thursday's debate on standards and privileges. She said that the motion might not be wide enough to allow the House to discuss the funding of the dome, the granting of passports and all the other topical matters relating to ministerial misconduct and allegations of such misconduct. If such are her reasons, why will she not ensure an early debate on a wide motion? I am sure that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) would value the opportunity to counter the allegations of dishonesty that are currently circulating against him from Cabinet members. I am sure that the many Ministers who are clinging precariously to their jobs would also like the opportunity to set the record straight on their own misconduct. Surely providing such a debate would be the right thing to do, instead of sweeping the matter into the long grass and sending Parliament away for far too long to ensure that the public do not see proper scrutiny of this miserable Government.

Mrs. Beckett: Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he either does not listen to what is said, or does not follow it properly. I did not give the reasons that he described in respect of not pursuing the debate at the present time. Opposition Members are clearly desperate to discuss the Hammond inquiry before its work is finished and have argued that many other issues need addressing, so I simply pointed out that we now have the opportunity to discuss two items of Government legislation on the day to which he refers. Given Opposition Members' comments on the need to scrutinise the Government's actions, I would have thought that even he might have thought that such business was more important.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the progress of legislation to establish through ratification and into full law the International Criminal Court? Does she accept that there is unnecessary delay in the House of Lords? Will she do her best to persuade the relevant authorities there to ensure that the measures pass rapidly into Committee, so that they can come to this House and be passed into law? They can then be used to bring to justice the international criminals who can currently go free.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has for some time expressed a great interest in those matters and

pressed for the measure's introduction. I am not aware of any untoward delay in the House of Lords, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of relevant colleagues. I assure him that the Government are anxious to make progress on the matter.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The transport commissioner for London is today meeting the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the future of the underground, for whose long-awaited modernisation the Government promised a public-private Partnership. Will the Leader of the House at least induce the Deputy Prime Minister to provide progress reports, if that is the correct term? Will she encourage him not to wait for what she earlier called a somewhat refined stage in discussions? Knowing the Deputy Prime Minister as we do, we cannot help but expect that we might have to wait an inordinately long time for such a stage to be reached.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the modernisation of the tube has been long awaited. It is unfortunate that it waited 18 years under the Government whom he supported. However, I assure him that the Labour Government are keen for the constructive negotiations that are taking place to be successfully concluded. If that happens, we shall be only too anxious to make it known.

Ms Hazel Blears: Is my right hon. Friend aware of worrying reports today about a former Conservative immigration Minister who admitted receiving papers from the Hinduja family for a passport application and was employed by them as an adviser after leaving office? Does she agree that, for the Hammond inquiry to be full, thorough, transparent and fair, the House must have access to papers from the previous Administration that show the involvement of Conservative Ministers in the matter? That would ensure that all the issues were brought to light and that the House had confidence in the inquiry.

Mrs. Beckett: I had seen the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. The papers that Sir Anthony asks to see and their release are matters for him, not the Government. I am sure that he will wish to examine thoroughly the facts about a series of events, which, from my reading, are of long standing. However, I know that Sir Anthony is anxious to complete his inquiry speedily, and we must therefore strike a balance.
Sir Anthony has expressed a wish for Ministers to avoid making comments that appear to prejudge any aspect of the inquiry before it produces any details. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend understands if I do not comment further on her question.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Steel Industry

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the steel industry and the announcement made today by Corus.
The House will know that since early December Corus has been conducting a review of its operations, the results of which were announced this morning. Corus has said that it intends to introduce radical restructuring measures, which will mean significant job losses in England and Wales. More than 6,000 jobs will be lost; about 3,000 will be lost in Wales and 3,000 in England.
Corus has failed to discuss its plans with the Government. Relevant information has not been disclosed; the company has resisted any meaningful dialogue and has refused to discuss in detail its plans for the industry. We have expressed our anxieties to the company about that lack of information at the highest level.
There is no doubt that Corus has been facing difficulties. Trading conditions are tough, and there has been a clear need for the company to take steps to address those problems.
The Government recognise that it is for Corus and any other company to take the commercial decisions that it believes are necessary. However, in the case that we are considering, capacity will be reduced and thousands of jobs lost as a result of a short-term response to the difficulties.
The Government acknowledge that, at a time of globalisation, many sectors of industry are undergoing major restructuring. In those circumstances, the role of Government is to provide economic stability. We are doing exactly that. Consequently, more than 1 million more people are in work now than in 1997.
Inflation remains around or below the target of 2.5 per cent. Long-term interest rates are the lowest for 35 years. We have put an end to the old cycle of boom and bust. Building on that platform of stability, the Government have been driving forward an active industrial policy to enable established industries to modernise, to adopt new processes and technologies and to support the development of new industries.
We have seen manufacturing productivity increase by about 3.5 per cent. over the past year. Exports are growing, with manufacturing export volumes up by more than 9.5 per cent. in the past year. Manufacturing output is also rising. The prospects for manufacturing are improving,-with most forecasters expecting growth to pick up over the next two years. Only this morning, the latest Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply report showed manufacturing growing at its fastest rate since March last year.
Today's announcement by Corus stands in stark contrast to other manufacturing companies that are prepared to take a long-term view. In recent weeks, Toyota and Nissan have taken positive decisions on production in the United Kingdom, when they could have gone anywhere in the world. They have decided that they have a future as manufacturers in the United Kingdom. They have committed to substantial new investment. They

have demonstrated confidence in their labour force and in the economic stability and favourable business environment that this Government have established.
Corus should, like Toyota and Nissan, weigh up its long-term interests and prospects and, in responding to the real challenges that it faces, put far greater weight on the new opportunities for developing into new markets. Even after today's announcement, Corus will remain a major employer, with about 22,000 employees in the United Kingdom—a demonstration of the fact that there is a future for the steel industry.
It is because there is a future for the industry that Corus should think again about the proposed closures and redundancies, and work with the trade unions, the Government and the National Assembly for Wales to identify a better way forward. We recognise that that is a commercial decision to be taken by the company and that action had to be taken to tackle the losses being suffered. However, Corus should now engage openly and work constructively with all the relevant parties, building on the strengths of the steel industry.
UK steelworkers have improved productivity dramatically in recent years. They are the most highly productive steelworkers in the whole of Europe. Between 1998 and 1999, they increased their productivity from 533 tonnes per person to 571 tonnes—well above the levels in Germany and France. We have been working with the industry to help it to improve productivity, to modernise and to adopt new technology.
The work force at Corus have shown their long-term commitment to the industry and to the company, and I share their anger at Corus's behaviour. Corus should now work with its employees and the communities affected. Should Corus refuse to change course, it must meet its obligations. It must pay the costs of the clean-up of the sites affected by today's announcement. It should then release them quickly and play its part in helping the communities affected.
The Government will not walk away from the innocent victims of this decision. We will be there alongside them. We will provide help for the individuals affected, support for local communities and backing for regeneration schemes to support the local economy and provide new jobs for people. However, it need not come to that.
Corus could adopt a different approach. If it were to do so, it would have the support of the Government. On behalf of 6,000 steelworkers, their families and the communities in which they live, I urge Corus to think again and to work with us to identify a better way forward.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement.
The ending of iron and steel making at Llanwern and at Ebbw Vale and the plant closures elsewhere—not just in Wales, but in Yorkshire and Teesside—represent a devastating blow to the workers affected and their families, especially as productivity in those plants increased so enormously over the past 20 years. The 6,000 job losses announced today come on top of some 4,000 last year, and the ripple effect will be felt much more widely among suppliers and others, including, as it happens, my constituency, which provides limestone for steel making. Where will the 3,000 job losses affecting


so-called "other business operations" fall? In other words, outside Wales and the north of England, which other local economies and communities will be affected?
The much wider problem represented by the job losses is the manufacturing decline since 1997. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since the general election, more than 350,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector? What is his assessment of the rate of those job losses? Are today's announcements just the symptom of a wider malaise and a deeper trend, which is getting worse, not better, in manufacturing industry?
Last week, we initiated a debate on manufacturing in which we demanded from the Secretary of State a package of practical and immediate measures to help manufacturing. Why did he refuse our proposals? We gave him specific examples of the regulatory burdens and the extra business taxes on manufacturing, which are undermining its international competitiveness. Is he aware that the United Kingdom Steel Association has specifically drawn attention to the burden of those extra regulations and the damage that it is doing to our competitiveness in overseas markets?
Is the Secretary of State aware that Corus partly blames high transport costs, which, of course, are caused directly by Government taxation policies that have made road fuel taxes the highest in Europe and undermined every manufacturing company that has to transport its products to the continent or elsewhere?
Last week, we demanded that the Government withdraw the new energy tax—the so-called climate change levy—which will come into effect in April and will do further damage to manufacturing concerns such as steel making that are high users of energy. Will the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, withdraw that new threat to manufacturing jobs? How can he justify an unnecessary and damaging extra measure that Corus must have taken into account in its decision to lay off such a number of workers?
Manufacturing is the sector that the Labour Government forgot. The Government say, and the Secretary of State has just told us, that Corus must think again. I hope that it does think again, but the Government must think again as well, and they can start by dismantling the £32 billion of extra regulatory and tax costs that the CBI has identified as an extra burden on British business over this Parliament.
Who in the Government is responsible for policy on Corus and on manufacturing and the steel industry? Is it the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Is it the Secretary of State for Wales? Is it the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly or his deputy, who is a Liberal and who apparently speaks on economic matters? Is it the Prime Minister, who met the chairman of Corus? Is it the Chancellor, who imposed those extra, damaging business taxes? Instead of a firm and clear strategy to stop the closures and reverse the trend in manufacturing decline, all we get from the Government is policy fragmentation and devolution of responsibility to others. Who is in charge of a strategy to prevent this from happening again?
We have been warning of these job losses for months. We have seen new Labour taking old Labour for granted. We have seen a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is constantly surprised at the damage that his own policies are doing. The Opposition will do all that we can to help the Government find a way out of the serious

situation, but only the Government can introduce a practical and immediate package of measures to restore the competitiveness of manufacturing industry in world markets. If the Secretary of State cannot do that, will he make way for those who can?

Mr. Byers: I think that there were some questions in that statement, to which I shall try to reply.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks of transport costs. When he has time to read the detail of Corus's announcement, he will see that transport costs were not a major issue. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked the questions. He should let the Minister reply.

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman will see that, as part of the restructuring announced today, Corus will take products from Teesside down to Llanwern, so transport costs are clearly not a great issue.
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the costs of the climate change levy to the steel industry: £8 million a year. If he had referred to the losses being incurred by Corus, he would have realised that £8 million is insignificant in that context. I do not know what contact the right hon. Gentleman has had with the chief executive of Corus, but if he had met him to talk about the company's plans and proposals—we have known since 5 December that the review was under way—he would know that the climate change levy was not a consideration. It was raised specifically with the chief executive, and it was not an issue.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks of jobs being lost. He fails to refer to the fact that, on average, every year for 18 years under the Conservative Government 150,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. That is his record.
The right hon. Gentleman does not refer to the impact of Tory policies on the steel industry. All that he needs to look at is the record of his Government. Between 1979 and 1997, 121,000 steel jobs were lost under the Conservative Government.
The right hon. Gentleman's solution is to deny workers minimum standards. When he speaks about the burden of regulation and red tape, he means the national minimum wage, which would go under the Conservatives; he means the right to paid holidays, which would go under the Conservatives; he means that the opportunities that we have provided for trade union recognition would be denied; and he means that health and safety would be put to one side.
That is the Tory prescription for manufacturing industry and for industry generally. We will not embrace that approach. All that the Tories offered was boom and bust. We offer economic stability and a far better way forward.

Mr. Paul Flynn: There was no malaise at Llanwern, which has the highest productivity, high investment and high tech—a brilliant success for Britain.
Today, we have witnessed the butchery of the steel industry. There have been many crises in the steel industry in the past 50 years. They have all been solved by common sense, agreements and deals done between


Government and the industry. Today, we have seen the industrial heart ripped out of the Ebbw valley. Six months ago Corus said that it intended to invest £150 million in the furnace at Llanwern. Today, that prospect was given the death sentence. That will mean that the rest of the plant is less viable.
Is it not true that by rumour, by denial of dialogue and by refusing to consider any alternative deal, Corus has callously and cynically manipulated the position, indifferent to the suffering of local people, entirely for the internal benefit of one single company? The assets and skills of Llanwern are being stripped out to benefit the company, and the contracts will be enjoyed by its Dutch arm.
Is it not right for us to censure Corus today—

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman should censure his own Government.

Mr. Flynn: Those who claim that this is a party political matter will rightly be treated with contempt by those who have seen their futures destroyed by Corus. It should be seen as a company with an undeveloped social conscience, but a highly developed instinct for greed.

Mr. Byers: Labour Members understand the anger articulated by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents. There is a personal element in what he says: he worked at Llanwern for a number of years.
There is no doubt that the process and procedures adopted by Corus run counter to most of the ways in which British business should be operating at the beginning of the 21st century. It has not involved the work force: it has made no attempt to explain the policies or the difficulties. The review has been in progress for nearly two months, but there has been no attempt to adopt a partnership approach.
Our message to Corus is clear. We understand the difficulties that it faces, but we believe that it can overcome those difficulties if it works in partnership with the Government, trade unions and the National Assembly for Wales. The steel industry operates very much on an economic-cycle basis. It is experiencing difficulties now, but good times will come. What worries the Government is that capacity and jobs are being lost, and that when we have opportunities in future we shall not have a strong steel industry that can take advantage of those opportunities.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Most right-thinking people will probably agree that Corus has displayed a disgraceful neglect of its work force—the most productive steelworkers in Europe. Those running the company have behaved like a bunch of 19th century ironmasters. The loss of 6,000 jobs in south Wales, Yorkshire and north-east England is a tragedy for those workers and their families.
Is the Secretary of State aware that today Corus is recruiting steelworkers for its plant in Holland, but sacking workers in the United Kingdom? Does he believe that the crux of the matter is the euro and, indeed, exchange rates, which have caused every ton of steel produced in the United Kingdom to make a loss? When will the Government address that problem?
Does the Secretary of State agree that our employment laws are inadequate to protect British workers, compared with those on the continent? When will the Government produce legislation to give British workers the same protection as their counterparts in Europe?
Why did the Department of Trade and Industry allow British Steel to amalgamate with Corus without considering some of the problems that have, in fact, resulted? There is no doubt that many communities will be devastated—not least Ebbw Vale, on the boundary of my constituency, which has been dealt what amounts to a knock-out punch.
The number of job losses in Llanwern is enormous. What we need now is a crash programme of investment. Will the Secretary of State plead with the Treasury for extra money for the Welsh block grant, to ensure the establishment of the new industries that will be so badly needed?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman raises the important question of what would happen if Corus proceeded with the plans that it announced today. I hope that the House will be united in sending Corus the clear message that we want it to reconsider, but, as I said in my statement, if it fails to do so we shall need to work alongside the individuals and communities affected by the decision.
We need to ensure that regeneration measures and job creation programmes are supported, and we shall certainly do that. We will not walk away from the difficulties being experienced by those individuals and communities.
The hon. Gentleman raises United Kingdom employment law. Of course the European works council provisions apply to Corus as a company that operates in two European Union countries. There are signs that the European works council provisions are perhaps not working as effectively as they should, and the Government will certainly want to consider that.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, only last week, in the light of events that occurred elsewhere, I announced that we would consult the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on our domestic information and consultation arrangements. We have already had first meetings with both organisations, and I hope that we can make progress with those discussions as quickly as possible.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Labour Members are shocked by the fury that my right hon. Friend is expressing and the way in which Corus has sidelined the Government and rejected out of hand the offers of assistance and support that have been proffered. Will he tell the House of the discussions that he has had with Corus and the attitude that the company has adopted towards him? I think that it would be instructive for the House to appreciate the manner in which the company behaves.
Will my right hon. Friend, in considering what we do next, try to impress on Corus that if it is not prepared to save the jobs, it should try to save the plant so that others can take on the responsibility of steel making. Then, if and when we join the euro and our circumstances change dramatically, we will be able to take advantage of new market conditions and new industrial opportunities which many of us see as the future for our country?

Mr. Byers: There have been numerous meetings with the company and with the chief executive since the review


started at the beginning of December. However, the chief executive indicated very early in those discussions that a package of measures to assist the company would not be enough to remedy its underlying problems as he saw them.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that, at the end of last week, there was an approach by those representing the work force at Llanwern about the possibility of taking over the plant and operating it themselves. As I understand it, Corus has dismissed that possibility because it does not want someone to be competing against it in the market. That was the company's reason, and I hope that it will reconsider that approach. If the work force genuinely feel that they can take over the plant and make it run profitably—we have seen at Tower colliery, in south Wales, that it can be done—I hope that Corus will give the idea proper and detailed consideration.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about which communities will lose the other 3,000 jobs?

Mr. Denis MacShane: Read the press release.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the press release; I have it in my hand.
Has the company given details of those job losses? The Secretary of State says that he has had extensive talks with the company. Has Corus said that it did not want to give details on job losses to the DTI because when Vauxhall did so, they were leaked to the press and the poor people who were losing their jobs learned about it on local radio?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman keeps making that accusation about Vauxhall, which he knows is untrue. If he wants to learn the details of the Corus announcement, he should talk to Corus.

Ms Dari Taylor: It is appropriate that my right hon. Friend should know of the anger of the work force on Teesside and in my constituency at this devastating news. They believe that their livelihoods and their families are unquestionably in desperate straits. My right hon. Friend will also want to know that my constituents' anger has been increased by the fact that they heard the news on the radio. Representatives of the lion and Steel Trades Confederation were refused the opportunity to discuss with management what options existed to save jobs.
My constituents have also been told that a further 3,000 jobs are to go. It is possible that they will hear on the radio the news about where those jobs will be lost. The work force are angry and their families are exceedingly anxious. My constituents would like to know how many times the Government approached Corus to achieve a resolution. Did the Government offer the company an effective package worth some £85 million, which it refused even to contemplate?

Mr. Byers: As I said earlier, there have been numerous meetings with Corus over the past two months, but the difficulty was that Corus would not enter into a

meaningful dialogue or discussion about working together to overcome the difficulties being experienced by the industry.
I understand the anger that my hon. Friend's constituents must feel. It is bad enough to lose one's job, or have it threatened, but I hope that all hon. Members will agree that to learn about it from a local radio broadcast is unacceptable. We have begun the consultation on information in part to find a better way forward, to ensure that a similar event does not occur in the future.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is the Secretary of State proud of his record and that of his Department? He did not know about BMW or Corus, and he makes statements to protect the textile industry while wearing a South African suit. Is it not about time that his job went too?

Mr. Byers: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman's suit was made, but he will be pleased to know that I am wearing an English-made suit. Perhaps a Whip will find out soon where the hon. Gentleman's suit was made.
On the serious point, the reality is that the Government engaged with Corus, but that Corus did not want to enter into dialogue with the Government. On behalf of the Government and the 6,000 steelworkers who have lost their jobs, I am asking Corus today to think again and to work with us, to find a better way forward and to overcome the company's difficulties.
That is the message from the Government. I regret the fact that the Tories have not joined us in that call.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting out very clearly the miserable way in which Corus has dumped British workers on the scrap heap. Sir Brian Moffat now joins Sir Ian MacGregor in the history of treachery in the steel industry: both have treated British steelworkers in a miserable way, and both have been honoured with knighthoods. That is a great pity.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Corm refused to discuss aspects of the plans that it was making, and that it blocked the Government's efforts to begin the process of regeneration by refusing to give the age profiles of the workers in their plants? Will he further impress on Sir Brian Moffat that it was that work force who earned British Steel such profits that it was able to throw £700 million at shareholders to get them to agree to the merger with Corus? I wonder what those shareholders are thinking about Sir Brian's actions now. I hope that further representations will be made to Corus to try to save something from this disaster.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend knows from his constituency experience exactly what large-scale job losses mean in the steel industry. If I recall correctly, in the Tory years about 10,000 steel jobs were lost in his constituency, so he will know at first hand the difficulties that will be encountered. We will certainly continue to make representations to Corus. I hope that in the face of the anger that has been expressed today and the shock felt by the communities and the individuals affected by the decision, Corus will engage far more constructively and that it will reconsider its announcement.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Secretary of State may be aware of a particular problem that all the


steel areas face, including my own in south Yorkshire, which this announcement can only make worse. I refer to high levels of long-term sickness and unemployment among older workers who have left the steel industry as a result of previous redundancies, or who will leave it in future. Does he agree that if ever there were a priority for joined-up Government action, it would be to offer new opportunities to people who have had to leave the steel industry so that they are not simply left to face 10, 15 or 20 years of inactivity followed by retirement? Does he agree that many national programmes, however well intentioned, have failed to touch those groups? Will he make it a priority for his Department to do something to help?

Mr. Byers: We have been working for some time now in this area because of the needs referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that in the very near future we will be able to make proposals, perhaps as part of a package in response to today's announcement. As I said, I hope that Corus will reconsider its position, but if it does not, we will need to introduce a package of measures to provide help for those affected and, in that context, we will need to address the issue referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Ann Clwyd: I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned the experience of Tower colliery in my constituency. When the previous Government and the Coal Board wanted to shut down the pit, the workers said no and set up a workers' co-operative. Will my right hon. Friend put every pressure possible on Corus to allow the men to be given the chance to run their own business? The men know better than anyone where efficiency savings can be made in the industry. Give the men in the industry a chance if the owners have failed.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I met Sir Brian Moffat this morning, we made exactly that point about providing an opportunity for workers at Llanwern, who suggested last week that they were interested in taking over the plant. We urged him to give detailed consideration to the proposal. Corus has resisted so far, but I hope that in the light of today's announcement it will now give detailed consideration to the proposition from the ISTC.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Of course, mass sackings are not consistent with the image of an economically buoyant Britain that the Government wish to spin in the run-up to an election. However, the Secretary of State has to accept that the board of Corus is acting not capriciously but because the company is making losses. That is happening because of the cheap imports of steel to this country and because a loss is made on every ton of steel made here. Until the Government are prepared to face up to why that is happening, there will continue to be a haemorrhage of jobs from the steel industry and from UK manufacturing. When will the Government show some leadership on that issue?

Mr. Byers: I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong views about the European single currency, and he may find himself isolated in the Conservative party at present.

He gave a coded message, which I hope his Front Benchers heard. We are aware of the issues to which he referred and we have a clear policy on them. We are keeping the option open, and I think that business understands that. Only a week ago, Nissan took its very positive decision because we kept the option open and did not rule it out for the next Parliament.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: My right hon. Friend will welcome the news that if he can have conversations with Corus over the aid package that has been put in place, workers at the Scunthorpe site will support him in all his endeavours. Scunthorpe and the north Lincolnshire area are losing objective 2 status, which is in a transitionary phase. Four hundred jobs could be lost at the Scunthorpe works on top of the 670 jobs already lost. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to look at the objective status of the north Lincolnshire area and to see what further money can be invested to assist in the regrowth of that economy and to help those people find jobs?

Mr. Byers: Our first task must be to try to get Corus to reconsider this morning's announcement, but my hon. Friend makes an important point: the more than 400 jobs that are projected to be lost at Scunthorpe are on top of the nearly 700 losses that Corus declared last year. Of course, if Corus proceeds with the proposals announced today, we will put in place a package of measures to ensure economic regeneration and job creation in the affected areas. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully examine how we can do that in Scunthorpe and north Lincolnshire.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: There is no doubt that today's announcement is disastrous for the communities in Teesside, Yorkshire and Wales that will be so badly affected; it is a real body blow. While I acknowledge that Corus has hitherto behaved very badly, does the Secretary of State realise that since Labour took office, 16,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in Wales? Is it not a fact that keeping inflation down has become something of a sacred cow? Should we not be looking at fiscal rather than monetary policies to control inflation? Does he agree that the Monetary Policy Committee should consider employment as well as inflation? Will he please tell the House what kind of help was on offer to Corus?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Welsh Assembly proposed a detailed package of measures, and support would have come from the United Kingdom Government as well. It was carefully tailored to ensure that we did not come into conflict with any European Union state aid provisions. In the end, it was clear that Corus did not want to engage in those discussions. The company said that discussions would make no difference to today's announcement. I regret that, because if we had had a genuine dialogue, we could have gone through with Corus the details of the support that would have been available. We may not have avoided all the consequences of today's announcement, but we would have been able to alleviate some of the pain now being suffered in many communities.
On the Government's economic policies, short-term measures could be taken, which might be broadly supported, but which would, in the medium and long term,


cause lasting difficulties. Wales knows that because it went through a desperate, painful period in the early 1980s. There are difficulties at the moment, but people in Wales, especially in south Wales and at Shotton in north Wales, know that they do not want to return to the early 1990s, when not thousands but tens of thousands of jobs were lost.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the policy prescriptions that he proposes may receive plaudits today, but they will reap real problems in the medium and long term, with tens of thousands of job losses in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to help every hon. Member in this very serious matter, but I need the co-operation of the House. Questions must be brief if I am to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I tell my right hon. Friend that anyone who knows the history of Ebbw Vale and the surrounding communities, some of which I represent, will know that steel making is vital to our communities? A total closure, such as that proposed, would therefore be desperate and devastating. Even at the eleventh hour, will my right hon. Friend make an appeal to Sir Brian Moffat and Corus because they owe a responsibility not only to their shareholders and bankers, but to the people who have made the industry such a great success?

Mr. Byers: Many communities will suffer if today's announcement is implemented, but Ebbw Vale in particular will be devastated by the announcement of the whole plant's closure. That community and town has developed very much on steel, the fundamental core of its economic activity. If Corus proceeds with the closure of Ebbw Vale, the Government and the Welsh Assembly will work alongside the community and the individuals affected to help them through a painful and difficult time. Better than that, however, we urge Corus to think again, to reconsider its proposals and to find a way in which Ebbw Vale can retain steel-making capacity. As my hon. Friend suggests, I urge Corus to reconsider the decision that it has taken today.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Did the Government not know that this disaster was impending? Last October, in evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State's Department analysed the problems faced by the steel industry and came up with an extremely complacent response. If the Government had got down to solving the problem then, developing the package of support that the Secretary of State tells us that they have offered—late in the day—to Cores, might not the disaster have been averted? Was not one contributory factor the high cost of energy in this country in comparison with that of our European competitors?

Mr. Byers: The reality is that when Corus had two joint chief executives, I discussed with them the possibility of support and assistance for the industry. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those joint chief executives were dismissed in early December, which led

to the review that we are dealing with—the consequences of which were announced today. We have been engaged with the company but, as I said in my statement and in reply to hon. Members, the company simply did not want to have a dialogue about how we could work in partnership to identify a better way forward.

Mr. MacShane: When Nissan and Boeing are investing in the UK, when there are 1.1 million new jobs here and 4.7 million new jobs in the euro zone and when Europe and Britain are growing, it is crazy to take so much steel capacity out of our economy. Sir Brian Moffat will ask a sacrifice of many men and women. May I suggest that he adds his own name to that list of sacrifice by resigning? A new leadership at Corus—because we must look forward—should work with the Government, the unions and even some Opposition Members, who understand the needs of manufacturing, to build a policy that gets us fully into Europe. The pound-euro imbalance has been the main cause of those running losses. We need a policy whereby we use more steel in the UK. The Tory anti-manufacturing policies that Corus so brilliantly represents are at the root of the problem.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point when he draws the attention of the House to the significant announcements made in recent weeks that core manufacturers have decided to invest in the United Kingdom. He was right to point out that Boeing made an announcement yesterday; there were also announcements from Nissan seven days ago and from Toyota at the beginning of January. If Corus takes the opportunity to reflect on today's announcement and on those decisions, it will recognise that manufacturing in the United Kingdom has a strong base. We have sectors of great growth—for example, in aerospace—for which steel will be required in the future. Corus will still employ 22,000 people after today's decision, showing that there is a long-term, viable future for the steel industry in the UK. The Government want to work with Corus to identify a common agenda, so that the company can meet its responsibilities and we can give hope to the individuals and communities affected.

Mr. Frank Roy: I would like to be able to say that the last remnants of the Scottish steel industry at the Dalyell and Clydebridge plants have avoided the cuts because of the lobbying carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and myself, but it would not be true. Frankly, the management of Corus have shown me that they do not give a damn for local politicians or, indeed, for the work force. As someone who has spent most of his life in a steelworks, I point out that tomorrow morning, 6,000 men will wake up with real fear for the first time in their lives—fear that the skills that they have honed working in blast furnaces, coke ovens, strip mills, boss plants and continuous casting plants will no longer be of any use to them. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, if those men lose their jobs, retraining will be given as quickly as possible?
Will the Secretary of State also ensure that he does not look across the Floor for lessons from Tory Members? The Tory party tried to smash steel trade unions into the ground in the 1980s; they sold off British Steel—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point based on his experience of the steel industry. If Corus does not withdraw these proposals, we will want to work with the individuals affected to ensure that their skills can be used to good effect in new jobs that give them good prospects for the future.

Mr. Stuart Bell: One of the few worthwhile things that the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said was that a ripple effect would follow today's announcement by Corus. More jobs might be lost if it continues with its present line.
May I underline the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor)? BBC Radio Cleveland announced the closure of the coil plate mill on Teesside, and we have made representations for a month about that plant without receiving any significant response.
Will my right hon. Friend impress on Corus the importance of the pension rights of the people who will be transferred? I understand that those rights will be frozen until people reach the age of 65, and that fact is causing additional anxiety. My final plea is to call on the House to be unanimous in calling on Corus to think, think and think again.

Mr. Byers: I hope that that will be the case, but I regret the fact that the Conservative Opposition did not join us in asking Corus to reconsider its approach.
We shall certainly raise my hon. Friend's specific point about pension rights with the company, because the issue is of great concern to the people who might be affected. I also share his concern about the way in which the work force on Teesside learned of their future. To hear the news on a local radio station must have rubbed salt into their wounds.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Corus's behaviour makes it a founder member of those who represent the unacceptable face of global capitalism. A steel mill in Sheerness in my constituency is owned by ASW Holdings of Cardiff. Workers there and at Corus have raised the issue of pension funds. One of the attractions of takeovers arises when the smaller company has a much richer pension fund. The pension funds of the two companies are merged, the trusts are changed and the owners of the new pension fund raid it. That has happened at Corus, and it could happen at ASW. Will my right hon. Friend examine the way in which pension funds are operated in the steel industry?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have already considered in some detail the way in which the new company, Corus, which emerged from British Steel, has used the pension fund. So far, it appears

that it has operated perfectly lawfully, although I know that many Labour Members think that its conduct has been unacceptable. Perhaps we should re-examine the rules that apply to pension funds.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, just over 12 months ago, Corus invested in a French steel plant that cost £80 million? A further £22 million was invested in that plant to produce rail lines that could easily have been produced at one of the plants in the United Kingdom that is now suffering from redundancies. That is unacceptable.

Mr. Byers: The House will understand that companies take commercial decisions on what might be a good long-term investment. We are saying to Corus that it needs to take a long-term approach to the steel industry in the United Kingdom. If we had had the levels of investment that my hon. Friend mentioned, some of the difficulties being experienced today might have been overcome.
The Government can impress on Corus the damaging effects of its decision. We stand ready and willing to work with it to identify a practical way forward that will overcome the problems that Corus is facing—clearly, there are problems—and to do so in a way that will secure the long-term future of the industry in the United Kingdom and the 6,000 jobs that are at risk as a result of today's announcement.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Today's news will be devastating to my constituents who work at Llanwern and an insult to those who worked there and paid the price in early retirement and redundancy to help to contribute to making the plant more profitable. Sir Brian Moffat met a group of Welsh Labour Members on Monday evening and assured us that he had made no decision about any plant. If that were the case on Monday, what happened during the past two days? Have all the decisions been taken in just two days? If they have, does that not show how short term they are? If he was not telling the truth, does it not show his deceit and the contempt with which he has treated the Government, the House and the work force?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents, and I fully understand his concern. It is clear that over several years the work force at Corus have demonstrated a lasting commitment to the industry and done everything asked of them. They have improved productivity and have been prepared to take early retirement, where appropriate, to secure the future of the industry and their colleagues. It is about time that Corus demonstrated a similar commitment to its work force, and it can do so by reconsidering the decisions and announcement that it made earlier today.

Opposition Day

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Asylum System

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's failure to deal with the total chaos in the asylum system, which is detrimental to the interests of genuine refugees and the people of the United Kingdom; notes the failure of the Government's measures introduced under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; further notes that the number of asylum applications made in 2000 reached the record level of 76,040, and that the proportion of unfounded claims increased to 78 per cent of all applications; notes with concern the continuing backlog of asylum applications and undetermined applications for British citizenship; and calls on the Government to take action to put in place measures which would both deter unwarranted claims and assist genuine refugees.
Before I embark on my speech, it may help the House if I say that as we have had an important statement, to which it was quite proper to allocate a large amount of time, there is less than two hours for this debate, so I ask for the indulgence of the House because I shall not take interventions from hon. Members on either side of the Chamber.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Shame!

Miss Widdecombe: It is intended to help as many Members as possible to speak in the debate.
From April 2000,
the new system will be in place, with new rules on benefit and new holding centres being opened up, so that claims can be processed quickly and we shall be able to get the numbers back down again."— [Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1035.]
Those are striking words, as are the following:
We are getting on with restoring the asylum and immigration system to proper integrity, so as to ensure that it deals firmly, fairly and swiftly with asylum and immigration applications."— [Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1067.]
Those were the promises made earlier this year by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary respectively.
The reality has been totally different. This country's asylum system is in utter chaos. That chaos not only continues to devalue the promises made by the Government in the House, but most of all is detrimental to genuine refugees. The Home Secretary is once again faced with a crisis of his own making—something with which he is all too familiar. Last year, we saw the implementation of his so-called flagship legislation, which he assured us would reduce the number of asylum claims. However, Home Office figures released at the end of last month show that the number of those seeking asylum in this country is the highest ever, with 76,040 applications for asylum received last year, compared with 32,000 at the end of 1997.
The Government might claim that the number of applications has fallen this month, but that is a fall from a record number in November, when we saw the highest ever number of monthly applications. The number of applications in the last quarter of last year was the highest in the year and is an increase on the figure for the last quarter of 1999.
We left office with the number of asylum seekers falling. Our tough measures led to applications falling by 40 per cent., but under this Government we have seen huge increases in the number of applications every year. Those figures demonstrate once and for all the abject failure of this Government's asylum policy. They claimed that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 would cut the number of unfounded applications and tackle the abuse of the system.
Despite the promises made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, and despite the claims made by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), that the Government's policies were beginning to work, there has been a month-on-month increase for seven of the eight months since April 2000, when the policies came into effect.
The Prime Minister stated in the House that:
the key factor is that the measures that were introduced in April will make a difference."—[Official Report, 10 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 837.]
He also promised:
The new system will be fairer and faster and will deter the bogus asylum seeker."—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 386.]
The Government's measures have indeed made a difference: they have increased the total number of applications in every year since 1997, and since the measures that were supposed to tackle the problem came into force, there has been a further increase in the percentage of asylum seekers whose claims are judged to be invalid.
Since April 2000, things have got worse. The Government have failed in their aim of reducing the number of unfounded claims on our asylum system. Whereas the previous Government saw falls in the number of applications, this Government have propelled the country to the top of the league table in Europe for the number of asylum applications. Other European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, have taken measures that have led to a fall in the number of applications. Under this Government, all we have had is year-on-year increases. Those figures show that our asylum system under Labour may be spun as successful but is in fact a total failure. It is not fairer; it is not faster; it is not firmer.
Claims have not been considered fairly. The huge backlog of unprocessed claims continues. The dispersal and support system is in a complete mess and is failing local authorities and those whom it is supposed to be helping. The immigration and nationality directorate is beset by bureaucratic blunders. The Home Secretary's flagship policy is now an expensive farce.
Rather than there being a fairer policy, which we were promised, case files are routinely lost and Home Office lawyers are left without vital information. The Minister of State admitted to the House that the immigration and nationality directorate has lost an incredible 15,855 files. According to the Home Office, vital files have gone


missing with increasing frequency. However, it is so desperate to get itself out of this mess of its own making that instead of allowing adjournments in cases where files have been lost, it has pushed ahead with asylum appeals when lawyers have not had the files to challenge applicants' stories. What is fair or firm about asylum tribunals not being presented with all the available evidence, or about initial refusals of unfounded applications being overturned because the material to challenge the case is not available?
The backlog of asylum applications rose from 51,000 in 1997 to 66,000 in 2000. In between, in 1999, the number rose to a horrific 101,000. In March, the Minister of State said:
Speeding up the asylum process is a major objective in our reform of the asylum system. People who come to the United Kingdom may be fleeing terrible persecution and it is important that their claims are dealt with swiftly. So that rather than being stuck in an administrative limbo they are able to get on with rebuilding their lives.
I am sure that the whole House shares that sentiment. However, asylum seekers are still faced with enormous delays before decisions are made.
The Home Office is so desperate to get out of the morass of backlogs and delays that it has created since 1997 that it has had to resort to using an amnesty. In a 1998 White Paper, Labour stated:
We reject the concept of amnesty".
The Government might claim that the backlog has been reduced, but is it fair that thousands of asylum seekers have been allowed to remain in this country without a full consideration of their case or, in many instances, after their claim has been refused? More than 21,000 asylum seekers have benefited from the amnesty. Is that a fair way of dealing with the problem? As well as the Government's inaction in taking measures to discourage the number of unfounded asylum claims, they have done little to remove those whose claims have been found to be bogus. Why is it that the number of removals and voluntary departures of failed asylum seekers was only 7,610 for the first 10 months of last year, against a total number of refusals for that year of 76,850?
Yesterday, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is Labour dominated, in a report which we may all pay tribute to and respect, accused the Government of being dilatory in removing rejected asylum seekers. It reported that during the first 10 months of last year, 58,885 asylum claims were rejected, but only 7,610 claimants were expelled in the same period. A recent report on Channel 4 news referred to at least 18,000 people who were officially listed as having been refused asylum last year, but who were for various reasons allowed to stay.
What is the point of an asylum system that, having rejected applications as unfounded, does not remove the applicants from the country? It is no wonder that thousands of asylum claims are being made in order to get round immigration controls. It is well known that it will be months before a case is decided and that there is little chance of the Government getting round to deporting asylum seekers, even after their claims have been rejected.
Another part of the Home Secretary's flagship policy was the dispersal and new support arrangements that were introduced as part of the Immigration and Asylum Act

1999. We were told that the introduction of the voucher system would cut abuse. Instead, the voucher system and dispersal schemes have been beset by problems and have failed to do what the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister claimed, which was to reduce the number of claims and deter abuse while providing support for genuine asylum seekers.
In June 2000, the Minister of State said:
The arrangements for dispersing asylum seekers are working well."— [Official Report, 26 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 652.]
However, in the same month the Audit Commission, on the implementation of the dispersal scheme under the 1999 Act, concluded that there were significant problems with the Government's—

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Audit Commission report was on the interim arrangements—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Lady must know that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Miss Widdecombe: We are used to bogus points of order from a Government who have no intention even of getting on top of bogus asylum claims. I shall tell them what they do not want to hear.
The Audit Commission's report stated that there were inadequate support services outside London— [Interruption.] Yes, it did. It added that that presented a major barrier to successful dispersal. Large groups of asylum seekers have been sent to distant parts of the country where appropriate social, language and legal support has not been available.
The Government's actions have caused suffering for genuine refugees. The dispersal system is being implemented cruelly. Applicants are dispersed by a chaotic system that sends them to areas often without appropriate support. They are often exploited by unscrupulous landlords. Is that fairer? It might be faster, but it is certainly not fairer.
The Guardian—no friend to the Opposition—reported on asylum barons in May 2000. They were growing rich on providing substandard accommodation for the Government's dispersal programme. [Interruption.] Apparently, substandard accommodation for the dispersal programme is of amusement to Labour Members. When they talk about genuine refugees in future, we shall remember that they laughed about a report that some people were growing rich at the expense of others.
The report by Shelter, which was published yesterday, again reported that the Government's actions were still leading to taxpayers' money being used to house asylum seekers in substandard property. Is that a fair or kind way for the Government to fulfil their responsibilities?
The dispersal scheme has been a disaster. The Government set targets for the dispersal of 65,000 asylum seekers, but the number dispersed has been a fraction of that. Meanwhile, local authorities are picking up the bill for the Government's failure. Kent county council has reported a backlog of more than 1,000 people waiting for dispersal. That same council says that spending on asylum has increased from about £250,000 in the year 1996–97 to


a forecast £50 million in 2000–01. The council had to deal with only 50 asylum seekers in the last six months that the Conservative Government were in office, whereas it is now dealing with 10,000.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): That is the previous Government's fault.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has the gall to call out from a sedentary position that that is our fault. We left a manageable situation, with applications falling. The Government have imposed on local authorities and on genuine asylum seekers a miserable failure of a system for which they alone are responsible.
Another news report in October last year was that the relationship between local authorities and the Home Office was at breaking point because of the lack of co-operation between the two. The Government are trying to palm off their responsibilities on to local communities.
In addition, the Government's voucher scheme for asylum seekers has ended in disaster. Refugee Action— [Interruption.] Perhaps Refugee Action is also a source of amusement for Labour Members. It was forced to close its office in Liverpool at the end of last year because workers there had been inundated with asylum seekers whose accommodation was unsafe and who had not received vouchers for essential items such as clothing and food. The charity said that it could not cope with the demand and it refused to compensate for what it called "Home Office inefficacies". The Government should be ashamed that they have put a charity that is devoted to helping refugees in that position. Instead of apologising, they continue in their intransigence, claiming that a system which everybody can see has failed is successful.
Once people have been cleared for citizenship, they face another backlog—possibly with the exception of those who make large donations to the Labour party. The number of undetermined citizenship applications has risen under the Government from 54,970 in 1997 to 73,000 at the end of last year. The current waiting time for applications for naturalisation is almost 20 months—that is, unless one is bailing out the dome, when the waiting time is reduced to six months.
Is that not evidence of the Government's record? We have a serious crisis in our asylum and immigration system. Thousands of people are stuck in backlogs, but the Government do nothing except sit and laugh. The thousands have to grin and bear the Government's empty promises. I visited Croydon 18 months ago and spoke to the queues of desperate people who had been waiting for months. They had been obeying the law and making due applications for visas and renewals of their leave to remain, or requests for citizenship. Every one of them was doing what he or she should be doing. Many of them were on their fourth or fifth visit, and they were being told, "No progress." What can the Government say? They can say only that since then the situation has become much worse.
Our policy, as announced last year by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, would be to provide secure reception centres, which would reduce the incentive for unfounded applications. As the former head of the Immigration Service Union commented:
In my study of immigration controls, it was apparent that those countries who maintained a policy of detention had a far smaller proportion of bogus, as against genuine, refugees.

Guy Goodwin-Gill, professor of international refugee law at Oxford university, said that if all new asylum seekers—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I think that I made my intentions— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady made it clear at the commencement of her speech that she had no intention of giving way.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand why Labour Members do not want to hear such things, but they are going to hear them.
Professor Goodwin-Gill— [Interruption.] The House is going to hear what the professor said, because it is important. He is professor of international refugee law at Oxford university, and he said that if all new asylum seekers were held in secure reception centres while their claims were processed, the system would be speeded up. Furthermore, he said:
I have no doubt in my own mind that those who come without reference to refugee status would be deterred".
Our policy of secure detention would mean that Britain would no longer put down a welcome mat for those who abuse our asylum system with unfounded claims, and it would aid genuine refugees. Instead of the Government's disastrous dispersal policy, reception centres would provide legal, linguistic and medical support for those seeking asylum. That policy, along with our national removals agency, would make sure that those whose claims were judged to be unfounded would be removed.
It is often said that that policy would be highly expensive. The Government are providing a reception centre which, when fully up and running, will cater for a fifth of all applicants. It cost £6 million. Are we really to believe the Home Secretary's extravagant claims that, as one fifth can be dealt with for £6 million, somehow the remaining four fifths will cost between £2 billion and £3 billion? That costing is nonsense, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He looked at the possibility of universal reception centres himself, and knows that they would work. He is simply not taking the single step that other countries have taken, which has proved to be successful.
Our policy will really produce a fairer, faster and firmer asylum policy. We shall know where those whom we are going to reject are and we shall be able to remove them. We shall be able to provide those whom we are going to accept with a proper resettlement package, which will mean that they go out with the necessary support. That is a hit-and-miss business with local authorities at the moment. We left a 40 per cent. fall in applications because we took measures that had a deterrent effect. We shall repeat that success when, in a few months time, we take over the asylum system. It will be a good day, not just for the British taxpayer, but for the man genuinely fleeing persecution.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
reaffirms the obligations of the United Kingdom under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to provide asylum for those fleeing from a well-founded fear of persecution; approves the Government's strategy for reform of the asylum system and welcomes the practical improvements which have already been delivered, including substantial additional investment to provide the Immigration and Nationality Directorate with the staff and other resources essential to operate an efficient and humane asylum system; congratulates the Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff on their recent achievements including taking 110,000 initial asylum decisions in 2000; welcomes the effect which the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and other measures have had in reducing unfounded asylum claims; welcomes the successful introduction of a coherent, national system of support for asylum seekers to replace the chaotic arrangements created by the previous Government which imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities in London and the South-East; notes that the civil penalty, a measure which was opposed by the Official Opposition, has successfully encouraged hauliers and ferry operators to introduce additional security measures to tackle clandestine and illegal entry to the United Kingdom; welcomes the Government's expansion of detention capacity to support substantial increases in the number of asylum seekers with unfounded claims who are removed from the UK; and supports the Government's commitment to working closely with other countries to deal more effectively with asylum pressures affecting the whole of Europe.
I always welcome the opportunity for a serious debate on asylum policy, to discuss how we might make the system a little more effective. I was looking forward to that, but as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) finished her extraordinary speech, the image that was conjured up was of a fairy godmother, dressed as Widow Twankey, waving a magic wand, and suggesting that with one bound, it would be possible to solve the asylum problems that have affected every single European country.
Instead of serious, constructive proposals, we heard the usual mixture of the unworkable and the unthinkable from a party which, while mouthing its supposed commitment to the rights of the genuine refugee, adopts an approach with an altogether more sinister motive. That approach is designed for one purpose only: not to deal with the issue, but to exploit it in the hope that fear will encourage some voters to support the Conservative party. That approach has nothing to do with principle or even workable policy; it has everything to do with prejudice.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. When the Opposition first announced their choice of debate for today, they put it on record—I ask my hon. Friends to weigh these words carefully—that it was to be about the Government's failure to run an efficient and humane asylum system. I checked the motion last night when it went down to the Table Office, and noticed that the word "humanity" had disappeared. So the Conservative party's commitment to humanity on this issue lasted exactly seven days. In the intervening period, one can imagine the scene in the shadow Cabinet. That loyal body of people in the shadow Cabinet, who spend most of their time dropping the proposals of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald like hot

bricks, might have said, "Do you really think it's a good idea for us to mention humanity? Do you think that will really appeal to our core voters?"
For the Conservative party to talk of humanity on this issue takes us into high Orwellian regions of double-speak. I shall take two examples, one from the Conservative party's past and one from the future that it promises. Five years ago, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was dealing with immigration matters, the Conservative Government passed into law provisions with the sole aim of ensuring that asylum claimants who, for whatever reason, applied inside the United Kingdom, were denied any means of support at all. Under the plans and legislation of the right hon. Lady, there was to be no food, no shelter and no housing whatever. Those provisions were included in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. There was to be no support whatever. But for the incompetence of the Conservative party, that is exactly what would have happened. Because the right hon. Lady failed to draft the legislation properly, the courts held that the responsibility of providing for all those asylum seekers would land on local authorities.
Today, the right hon. Lady said that, at the end of 1996, Kent had a responsibility for only 50 asylum seekers, but that it is now responsible for 10,000.

Miss Widdecombe: The Government let them in.

Mr. Straw: That is because, under the right hon. Lady's legislation, it was intended, first, that asylum seekers should have no support. Then, under the legislation, the responsibility for dealing with thousands of asylum seekers fell indiscriminately on local authorities in London and the south-east. That was the result of the right hon. Lady's policy, and the dispersal policy is there to put that right. If the right hon. Lady has any complaints about those 10,000 asylum seekers, the person who has to answer for those complaints is none other than herself.
The right hon. Lady was fortunate to have an excuse for not taking interventions in an extraordinary speech that was riddled with even more inaccuracies than usual. Towards the end, she presented her policy to lock up all asylum indefinitely seekers in what are called secure reception centres. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition has said that
the next Conservative Government will detain all new applicants for asylum, whether port applicants or in-country applicants, in reception centres.
That claim applies to everybody, rather than only to those whose claims appear to be unfounded or to young single men. It applies to elderly people, and to women and children, regardless of their circumstances.
Leaving aside the fact that it would take years, if not decades, to build the number of centres that the right hon. Lady would need to implement that proposal, I point out that its cost would run into billions of pounds. It is extraordinary to suggest that she can base her plans on Oakington, which is a processing centre, and to argue on the basis of its costs that indefinite detention would be a matter of millions of pounds. At least 50 centres would be needed, many of them in the green belt and in Conservative constituencies, in Kent and elsewhere.
I attempted to intervene on the right hon. Lady to remind her that we are trying to build additional detention capacity in Aldington, which is just outside Ashford. We


have looked around the country for sites that will enable us to increase detention capacity to 2,500 places. That increase is necessary because of the inadequate detention capacity that was left by the previous Government. We searched the country for sites and found Aldington—but what is the result? The Conservative party, which supports the expansion of detention centres nationally, opposes it locally. The Member of Parliament for the area is a Conservative and opposes the centre. The Conservative council opposes it so much that it has even invoked the Human Rights Act 1998 to argue against it.
We know that local Tories are opposed to the centre, but what of the right hon. Lady? She knows the area and may know the 14 other sites that were considered. After 18 months of careful work by officials, we decided that Aldington was the best available site. Given her prominence in Kent and her policy of establishing more detention centres, about which we have just heard, should she not have been able to form a view on this one centre? However, when she was asked directly whether she was for or against Aldington, she ducked and dived pathetically:
I have not looked at the merits and demerits of the Aldington site".
Whether it is my policy or hers, the simple fact is that, if she wants 50 extra detention centres, she must start with one centre. Aldington is the first one, so I offer her the opportunity to tell us whether she supports it.

Miss Widdecombe: First, if one detention centre can cope with one fifth of all applicants, why will it take 50 to deal with all of them? That is nonsense arithmetic. Secondly, I shall consider the merits and demerits of every site, including Aldington.

Mr. Straw: That is why I said earlier that the Tories do not have any serious policies to deal with the problem. I assume that the right hon. Lady has more influence with Kent Tories than I do. One word from her to tell them she would certainly establish a centre in Aldington, since 50 centres are needed, would change the current circumstances. The simple truth is that she wills the end, but not the means. It is utterly disreputable of her to call for detention space in general, but then to oppose it or sit on her hands in respect of particular details.
I say to the right hon. Lady that there is a huge difference between processing centres such as Oakington—

Miss Widdecombe: Why 50?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady asks why there should be 50 centres. That is the case because, on any basis, she would have to hold 30,000 applicants if she wanted any chance of success. I am happy to share those figures with her. Furthermore, to understand the sheer incredibility of what the right hon. Lady proposes, we must try to accept not only that she is going to build a network of centres throughout the country and find the necessary money, but that she will magic into existence safe, stable Governments in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Somalia, to allow unfounded applicants to be immediately sent back once their claims have been rejected.
Even the most cursory scrutiny of that fantasy policy exposes its deceit. There is not the slightest chance that such a policy could ever be implemented. It is completely

and utterly unworkable. I know that, as does anybody who knows anything about the issue, and the right hon. Lady knows it too. Of course, however, that is not the point for the Opposition. It is not a question of whether their proposals are workable, but of whether they appeal to people's base prejudices. The truth about asylum is that it does not lend itself to her glib pronouncements. It is a hugely complex matter, for which a solution cannot be provided overnight. Instead, it requires concerted and long-term efforts, both in the United Kingdom and with our European partners.
As the Select Committee on Home Affairs recognised in its report on border controls, which was published yesterday, action is necessary at a European level to deal with the asylum issues that affect all European countries.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Why here?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking why the problem has not affected other European countries. The answer is that it does affect them. In the three months from July to September last year, UK asylum applications increased by 6 per cent. on the previous three months. Sweden saw an increase of 48 per cent., Belgium 52 per cent., Germany and Austria 24 per cent., Denmark 23 per cent. and the Netherlands 16 per cent.
One of the reasons why we happen to have more asylum applicants in absolute terms—this is another point that the right hon. Lady may not have noticed—is that we have a bigger population. If she wants to refer to league tables, let me tell her about the league table on asylum applications per thousand of population. We are not first, second or third in that table, but eighth, which is in the middle of the asylum league. Belgium has more than two and a half times our rate of asylum applications. In Ireland, the rate is almost twice ours, and in the Netherlands it is getting on for 60 per cent. The rates in Switzerland, Austria and Denmark are all greater than ours. They have significantly higher proportions of applicants per head of population than this country. This is a European problem that can be resolved successfully only by European action.

Mr. Marsha Singh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Dublin convention is one of the obstacles to the quick removal from this country of asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected? Will he tell the House which Government signed that convention?

Mr. Straw: The Dublin convention was and is one of the major problems in removing applicants from this country. [Interruption.] As it happens, I was not dealing with immigration and asylum when the matter arose in 1990. The Opposition approach the matter as if we were responsible for a measure that they introduced. The convention was signed in 1990. Notwithstanding the fact that the previous Government, including the right hon. Lady, knew exactly what it would achieve—or not achieve—they did nothing to try to reverse it or to limit its operation. When the Labour Government came to power in May 1997, we knew that the convention would inevitably take effect in October of that year. Worst of all, in addition to establishing the convention, the previous Government were willing to tear up the gentlemen's


agreement with Belgium and France that had previously allowed this country to send back most asylum applicants to those countries.

Mr. Fabricant: Get rid of it, then.

Mr. Straw: We would like to get rid of the Dublin convention, and quickly. The problem is that it is currently the only EU agreement that enables us to return applicants, so disowning it altogether would leave us with no agreements whatever with other European countries. I dearly wish that we could return to gentlemen's agreements; indeed, that is exactly what we are working on. However, if ever there was a single factor that helped to cause the increase in the number of asylum applicants who enter this country, and the greater difficulty in removing them, it was the Dublin convention, for which the right hon. Lady was responsible.

Mr. David Winnick: How many more genuine asylum seekers would have come to this country without the military campaign to liberate Kosovo? Many Conservative Members, including many who are in the Chamber, strenuously opposed that campaign.

Mr. Straw: Thousands more would have come to this country, just as Germany had to bear the brunt of almost 500,000 applicants a year in the early 1990s because of the chaos in Bosnia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) draws attention to another point. Fundamental pressures for asylum arise not from the circumstances in the receiving state but from disruption, civil strife and worse in countries hundreds of miles away.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald referred to the drop in figures in 1996. I have corresponded with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary. Numbers declined early in 1996; they fell throughout Europe. However, by the end of 1996, they were rising, and they continued to rise in 1997. The right hon. Lady cannot escape the fact that the increase throughout Europe was due to growing civil strife.

Mr. Fabricant: They came to us first.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Asylum seekers could not have come to us first. Instead of fanning his prejudices, he should examine the figures and concentrate on the fact that, notwithstanding recent increases in this and other countries, we were in the middle of the European table last year, and we remain in that position this year.
The right hon. Lady suggests that there was a dramatic change in asylum and immigration policy in May 1997.

Miss Widdecombe: You came to office.

Mr. Straw: Yes, not least because people recognised that our immigration policy would be fairer, firmer and faster. However, the legislative and administrative

structures remained exactly as the previous Government had left them until the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 came into force last year.
The biggest difference between our two Administrations was investment. When the right hon. Lady was immigration Minister, she did not provide for an increase in resources to reduce the record delay in processing asylum applications. Instead, she agreed formal plans with the Treasury for a reduction of 1,200 people—almost half the staff—in the immigration and nationality directorate. When numbers rose from late 1996, as the previous Government knew they would, they adopted the most irresponsible policy of all: a scorched earth policy. They tried to ensure that we were unable to cope with the increase by degrading the system and staff at Croydon. At the end of 1997, there were fewer than 100 skilled case workers left. It is no wonder we faced so many problems.
Our approach was to recognise the administrative and legal chaos that the right hon. Lady had left, and the financial problems that existed. We proposed a root and branch reform, in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It was the most comprehensive reform of the system ever introduced.

Miss Widdecombe: It was a total failure.

Mr. Straw: It was not described in that way at the time. Indeed, it received substantial scrutiny in a Special Standing Committee, which was notable for two or three reasons. First, the then Opposition spokesman put on record his support for the dispersal policy because he recognised that it made more sense than secure reception centres. He realised, because he has more sense than the right hon. Lady, that they could not be afforded or introduced for many years.
Secondly, the proceedings were notable because Conservative members of the Committee opposed only one measure. It could not be described as soft; indeed, the Conservative spokesman in the other place, Lord Cope, described it as tougher than any measure that the Conservatives had devised. The right hon. Lady did not mention that policy in her opening speech; it has proved the most effective in a range of effective measures. It is the civil penalty.
The civil penalty has made a significant difference to enforcement. It has resulted in a decline in the number of clandestines who come through docks such as Dover. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) nodding. It has contributed to reducing the number of unfounded applications from places such as eastern Europe, to which it is much easier to return applicants than, for example, Iran and Afghanistan.
Applications from eastern Europe have fallen by 50 per cent. as a direct result of our measures. Our policies are working, but neither the right hon. Lady nor anyone else could have anticipated the huge increase in civil strife, disorder and violence in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sri Lanka, which account for the bulk of applications not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout Europe.
The right hon. Lady implies that a policy of locking up asylum seekers—some of whose claims are unfounded—from the countries that I mentioned will enable us to get them back quickly to the countries from which they have


come. That is incredible and wrong. Despite the best efforts, not only of the United Kingdom but of other European countries, it is difficult, whatever the system, to get rejected asylum applicants back to the countries from which they came. We work hard at the problem, but those people are often here for many months, sometimes years, after their applications have been refused.
That problem affects every country in Europe. In Germany, the Minister for the Interior, Otto Schilly, told me only three months ago that 500,000 rejected asylum applicants are on welfare. They cannot be returned to their country of origin despite the rejection of their applications.
What are the right hon. Lady's proposals for speeding up the removal of rejected applicants to Afghanistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq and China?

Miss Widdecombe: Deter them from coming here in the first place.

Mr. Straw: Two replies today have revealed the bankruptcy of the right hon. Lady's policies. This is another example of the magic wand. Her policy is a zero policy. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady's answer was important. She claims that she would deter all applicants. Despite having detention centres in which to lock up applicants for ever, there will be no applicants, genuine or otherwise.
Almost all asylum applicants from Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia or Sri Lanka, even if their applications turn out to be unfounded, are fleeing from what they regard as disruptive circumstances. They are not living in happy circumstances. Why is it that people with similar economic circumstances in, say, India do not flee to this country, while people from those other countries do? The result of the right hon. Lady's policy would be to lock out every asylum applicant.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
Earlier today, the right hon. Lady admitted, when she said that some reception and detention centres would be needed, that some people coming in would have their claims rejected. I put the question to her again. How would she return rejected asylum applicants, in a better and quicker way than we or other European countries are doing, to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sri Lanka?

Miss Widdecombe: One could be forgiven for thinking that no asylum seekers were ever returned to those countries, yet the Home Secretary told the House only a few months ago that the Afghan hijackers and all involved in their case would go back to Afghanistan as soon as possible. They are still here, although the Home Secretary said that it would be very easy to deal with them.
The right hon. Gentleman is failing to distinguish between the genuine and the ill founded cases. We will welcome the genuine cases, but we will deter the ill

founded ones by sending out a simple message: "If you come to Britain without a well founded claim, you will be detained. You will be dealt with speedily, and you will be sent back." If that is the message going out, it will be a deterrent.

Mr. Straw: In a more charitable moment, I might have thought the right hon. Lady had not thought this through. She is an intelligent woman who is capable of a perfectly intelligent contribution to a debate on some issues. Yet on this crucial issue, she implies that with one sweep she would be free, having produced a solution that she would never be able to produce in government.
The right hon. Lady's answer exposed another interesting point. She assumed that the world was divided, almost literally, into black and white: that there were applicants whose cases were genuine and well founded, and those whose cases were not genuine and, therefore—although she did not use the word on this occasion—abusive. There are a number of applicants—I have seen some in my constituency—whose fear, subjectively, is perfectly genuine, but who turn out to be unable to meet the objective test of the 1951 convention. The right hon. Lady would still have the problem of having to return those applicants to their country of origin. She has proposed no policy for doing so, despite being given every opportunity.
As for the right hon. Lady's suggestion, to which she keeps returning, that all one needs is reception centres and detention centres—even on her own analysis, that would take years to achieve. It would not work, in any event; it has not worked in other countries. She would still have the problem that our and every other European country has had—dealing with the realities of the world. They are: that it is straightforward to return people to some countries, in which case we are doing so, but that with other countries, although we are doing our best and will continue to strengthen our work on removals, it is much more difficult.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and for his recent correspondence with me on this subject, although I am disappointed at the outcome.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what effect he believes the treaty of Nice, and enlargement, will have on migration pressures? When the Home Affairs Committee was told by the Home Office that it was reasonable to assume that the internal frontiers between the new member states and the Schengen states would remain in place for many years to come, what basis was there for that assumption?

Mr. Straw: The admission of the new states to the EU will, almost by definition, have the effect of reducing unfounded claims from the applicant countries—for example, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Lady will allow me to continue. This is an important question and I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman.
One of the tests that the Interior Ministers have determined should be set for the applicant countries is that their justice and home affairs systems should have integrity, so that there could not, for example, be the kind of abuse alleged to have been perpetrated in the past against the Roma gypsies in the Czech Republic. In a sense, that is a plus.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question relates to the Schengen countries. The Schengen countries that currently maintain a border with eastern Europe are all absolutely clear that they have to maintain border controls—for example, at the eastern perimeter of Germany, Austria and Italy—for many years to come.
Although we are not formally a member of the Schengen area, we take part in Schengen. One of the reasons that I want to do so is to stiffen the resolve of my fellow Interior Ministers. Although the central and eastern European countries have improved their human rights record, countries further to the east may not have done, and their borders may be leaky. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but the EU is putting in place measures to deal with those issues.
I mentioned the civil penalty earlier. That has made a huge difference to dealing with clandestines. I notice that the right hon. Lady made no reference to it. I also notice that, notwithstanding the effectiveness of the civil penalty, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, has said on a number of occasions that he would withdraw the penalty and abandon it altogether. If the Conservative party goes into the next election with that pledge, as well as the fantastical pledges that we have heard today, it would expose even more the bankruptcy of their policies.

Mr. Wardle: We are going to win the election.

Mr. Straw: No, you are not.

Mr. James Clappison: rose—

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: rose—

Mr. Straw: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it were not for the civil penalties, the recent huge overhaul of security—not only in the trucking companies but in the port of Calais, and particularly in the P&O Stena company—would never have taken place? That operation has been lauded as highly successful and effective.

Mr. Straw: There is no question but that my hon. Friend is right. He has experienced the chaos that was produced by the previous arrangements under the Conservatives, and the pressure that it produced across Kent. He also knows the effectiveness of the civil penalty. There is no doubt that the imposition of the civil penalty has strengthened security at Dover and is now adding greatly to the strengthening of security where we really intended it to: at dispatching ports such as Calais. The port of Calais has strengthened its security, as have major carriers such as P&O Stena.
On the asylum support system, the right hon. Lady came up with a lot of quotations that were wholly tendentious because they referred to the Conservatives' asylum system, not to the new one that we have put in place. So far as the Shelter report is concerned, Chris Holmes, the director of Shelter, wrote to me to stress that

a study that it had carried out was done before the establishment of the national asylum support service, and that
the specifications of the NASS system represent an improvement on the situation to date.
The Audit Commission report also referred to the previous system, not the new one.
What the Conservatives did—I now think that they did it deliberately—not only left chaos in the administration and the legislation, but collapsed the resources available to the immigration and nationality directorate, even though numbers were rising. We have increased— [Interruption.] Well, it was either deliberate or utterly incompetent. On this occasion, I happen to think that it was deliberate. We have increased the resources in the IND dramatically. We have doubled the number of IND staff. As a result, we have reduced the time taken to process applications. The backlog has come down, too, from 100,000 early last year to 66,000, and falling fast.
I have said before, and I am happy to say it in the House, that the asylum issue presents me with more acute ethical issues of principle than any other aspect of my work as Home Secretary. I wish, therefore, that we could engage in a serious debate about how we can make our system more humane and effective. Such a contribution was made from the Opposition side when the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked a question based on his experience as an immigration Minister.
We attempted to secure such a debate, not least with our decision to commit the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to a Special Standing Committee. That is what makes the recent pronouncements of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald so absurd. If the Conservatives were serious about the alternatives to our reforms, why did they do virtually nothing to amend that legislation? Indeed, aside from the civil penalty, all they did— [Interruption.] Aside from the civil penalty, which they opposed, the only other thing they did— [Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Lady is twittering, as usual. I have got used to it, fortunately. I took interventions, but, unsurprisingly, she was ready to evade them. She does not want to be questioned on her policy.
Aside from the civil penalty, all the Conservative party was willing to do at that stage was not to wind up cash support, but to propose a £500 million increase in it. By contrast with such disreputable, ill thought out and ill judged proposals, the Government are engaged in the long-term process of reform. Those reforms and the investment that we are putting in place have laid the foundations for a fairer, faster and firmer asylum system. I invite the House to reject the Opposition motion and support the Government amendment.

Jackie Ballard: I cannot say that the debate so far has been either constructive or educative, and even to call these proceedings a debate may not accord with the "Oxford English Dictionary" definition because I do not believe that a lot of listening has been done on either side. However, the debate is timely as it comes the day after the publication of the Home Affairs Committee report and in the week during which hon. Members will have received the Shelter report on housing asylum seekers in the private rented sector. The right hon.


Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred to the report only in passing, not in detail.

Miss Widdecombe: I had no time.

Jackie Ballard: We choose our priorities for the little time available.
I notice that the Chairman of the Committee is no longer in his place, but the report makes 22 detailed and serious recommendations that are worthy of serious consideration. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches would support many of them, particularly better co-ordination between the different services and better use of technology. The report refers to push and pull factors, and I shall discuss first some pull factors.
If people in other countries know of a backlog of applications in the United Kingdom, how long it takes to process applications and the inadequacy of the system to monitor the departure of failed asylum seekers, that may act as a pull factor that draws them to the United Kingdom. So may a faulty perception of what they will receive under the benefits system. Many think that they would get many times the amount that they would really receive and do not realise that people are given vouchers, not cash. Knowledge of the language, cultural and historical links and family links are also pull factors. However, no matter how bad the country of origin of an asylum seeker, it must be difficult to leave behind one's homeland and home, so asylum seekers naturally seek somewhere with which they are familiar in terms of people, place or language.
The standard of accommodation for asylum seekers cannot be a pull factor. The Home Secretary said that the Shelter report was undertaken between January and March last year, before the system changed, but it says that asylum seekers largely live in houses in multiple occupation. I would be pleased to hear his assurance that those details have changed measurably.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Surely the hon. Lady accepts that, however substandard or undesirable we may consider such conditions to be, many of those seeking refuge in this country would consider them to be a zillion miles better than the equivalent accommodation in the countries from which they are fleeing. Therefore, that is one pull factor that she should not ignore.

Jackie Ballard: Asylum seekers largely live in HMOs, and 17 per cent. of those were found to be unfit for human habitation. Such conditions may or may not be better than those which some people have left. Many people are persecuted for their political views or for membership of certain organisations and they may have lived in houses that are much better than my house or that of the hon. Gentleman. The fact that some people come from worse conditions does not justify their living in inhuman conditions when they reach this country.
Furthermore, 86 per cent. of those HMOs were unfit for the number of occupants that they held and more than 80 per cent. were exposed to an unacceptable fire risk. I readily accept that many people who are indigenous to this country live in substandard HMOs, but the one does not justify the other.
I do not know how many Members of the House have the time or the inclination to watch soap operas, but I happened to watch "EastEnders" on Sunday, immediately after the Home Secretary's appearance on another channel. One character was trying to persuade another to buy a house and turn it into bedsits. The person being persuaded said, "Look at the state of the house; it is disgraceful. No one would live in it." The person doing the persuading said, "Yes, but we can pack it full of asylum seekers and students. People who are desperate will live anywhere."
Soap operas often reflect real life and I suspect that the authors of that scene were reflecting the attitudes of a number of landlords across the country, and perhaps of people who have listened to the Conservatives on the subject of asylum seekers. The Shelter report concludes by saying that there is a need for an urgent review of housing and greater support from the NASS system, especially in relation to homes subcontracted from private landlords. I hope that the Home Secretary will take note of that.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Lady aware that asylum seekers in Liverpool, particularly in the Inn on the Park, the Landmark and Sunnyside, live in deplorable physical conditions and under a regime that provokes£indeed, organises£intimidation and causes great concern? Can she shed any light on why the Liberal Democrat city council has not used its powers under environmental health laws to take action?

Jackie Ballard: Clearly, I do not know the details of what is happening in Liverpool. The hon. Lady, as a representative of Liverpool, will know those details. If she wants to speak to me afterwards, I shall be happy to ask my colleagues on Liverpool city council about that.
The demeaning and ineffective voucher system cannot be a pull factor and I hope that the Minister of State will tell the House when the results of the voucher system review will be made public. She will know that there is a lot of anxiety among her Back Benchers about that. Perhaps she will also tell us how many submissions were received and how many of those opposed the system.
We believe that the asylum dispersal system needs urgent review. According to the Refugee Council, it has led to a massive increase in the number of applications not being considered at all. When the Conservatives cite their statistics, they do not take that into account. There was a huge increase last year in the number of applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance. Many asylum seekers have difficulty in completing the statement of evidence forms. That difficulty is compounded by postal delays, and problems in finding a legal representative and in access to translation services.
We must treat people who come to this country humanely and fairly. I hope that no hon. Member would disagree with that statement. However, the Conservatives speak as though the most important issue was the number of people coming to the UK seeking asylum. They imagine that asylum seekers can be deterred from coming to the UK by an even tougher regime than we already have. How can asylum seekers be deterred from coming from countries such as Somalia and Afghanistan? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald did not have an answer to that.
I shall spend a little time considering the push factors, which get less airing in debates about asylum. In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Home Secretary said£I paraphrase£that the primary determinant of the number of people seeking asylum was not the attitude or competence of the UK Government, but pressures in other parts of the world.
There are an estimated 30 million displaced people across the world. EU countries make up 6 per cent. of the world's population and last year took only 4 per cent. of the world's refugees. We had more than 70,000 applications in the UK last year, but as the Home Secretary says, pro rata that puts us only 10th in the league of European countries. We host a small fraction of the world's refugees.
The poorer countries in the southern hemisphere receive the most refugees. We cannot expect the developing world to absorb all the problems of refugees. The UK contribution pales into insignificance compared with much poorer countries, such as Pakistan and even Iran, which have taken, respectively, 1 million and almost 2 million refugees from Afghanistan.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jackie Ballard: No. Time is short and others want to speak.
As the Select Committee said, we should focus on conflict resolution and on an EU-wide effective development aid policy, if we seriously want to deter asylum seekers by reducing the number of people who need to flee from conflict and poverty. We need to establish in this country an open and clear immigration policy. I welcome the Minister's recent remarks on the positive contributions of immigrants, and on the need to attract skilled workers to our shortage areas.
People, particularly Conservative people, speak about economic migration as though it was somehow immoral or sinful for people to seek to better themselves. [Interruption.] I should have thought that Conservatives would applaud economic migrants, rather than criticising them. We need also to establish nationally and internationally the legal methods of claiming asylum.
In conclusion, I shall ask the Minister a specific question, which I hope she will have time to answer. What advice would she give to a woman persecuted by the Taliban in Afghanistan, who speaks English and wants to come to the UK as a refugee? How does she do that legally? The Minister's answer to that woman will be the true test of the fairness of the Government's policies on asylum.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I might be the only Back-Bench Member who speaks in the debate, so I might be the only hon. Member restricted to 10 minutes.
I respectfully ask those on both Front Benches, particularly the Opposition Front Bench, to get together quickly, to see whether the debate can extended by at least an hour. That would take an hour out of the debate on agriculture, in which not enough hon. Members have

applied to speak, as I understand it. That would enable us to deal with the serious matter of asylum at slightly greater length.
As there will be only one or two Back-Bench speeches, I wonder why the two Front-Bench spokesmen need 20 minutes to reply. I realise that my remarks are of great importance to them, but—

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We considered seriously whether we could extend the debate, but as I am sure the House will appreciate, there is an equally important debate to follow. The reason why time has been so short is that a whole hour was taken up by, admittedly, a very important statement. As a Front-Bench Member, I regret that. I tried to gallop through, but those on the Government Benches were not entirely appreciative of that, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will recall.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I know that Mr. Speaker has imposed a time limit of 10 minutes. In the brief time that is left, perhaps hon. Members will impose an even shorter time limit on themselves.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Injury time for that intervention, please.
We have a responsibility in the House, as does anyone in public life, to be very careful about the language that we use when describing asylum seekers and the problems faced by them. As the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) mentioned, the topic even gets into soap operas. Hon. Members should think about the language that they use, and the racist abuse that is meted out against asylum seekers on the streets of our big cities every night of the week. I think of the stabbing of Cumali Sinangali that took place over the Christmas weekend, and going back some years, I think of a Kurdish man, Shiho Iyuguven, whose family I got to know well, who took his life because of the way in which he had been treated in this country, and the family's fear.
We should remember that most asylum seekers have come to Britain to seek a place of refuge and a place of safety because of the abuse of their human rights in the society from which they came. The abusive language used towards asylum seekers encourages racist attacks, xenophobic attitudes, and very bad attitudes, right down to the school playground, in respect of asylum seekers' children. We should remember that and be extremely careful.
If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has any doubts about the reasons why people seek asylum, I urge her to take a few hours to read the Human Rights Watch report 2000. The opening pages are dedicated to a series of maps showing countries where there are major abuses of human rights, lesser abuses of human rights and very few abuses. The right hon. Lady will see that in the majority of countries of the world, people suffer major abuses of human rights.
Nobody willingly, lightly or easily goes into exile and seeks asylum from his own society. Many people have sought and received asylum in the area in which I live. I know them well and I talk to them. It brings tears to my eyes when I hear the abuse that they have been through in prison systems in various parts of the world, and their


wish to make a serious contribution to this society. Newspapers such as the Daily Mail routinely run headlines condemning asylum seekers for whatever reason, and that is parroted by the Conservative party.
I hold the principles laid down in the Geneva conventions and the UN convention on human rights to be extremely important. They lay down the right of asylum for people seeking to flee from persecution and personal danger. We should be careful that the way in which we deal with asylum seekers in Britain does not, to some extent, perpetuate that abuse of human rights.
I refer anyone who is concerned about that to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report dated 8 August last year, which contained the concluding observations of the committee on the elimination of racial discrimination. I shall quote briefly from the report. It states:
The Committee expresses concern that the dispersal system"—
that is, in western Europe and Britain—
may hamper the adequate access of asylum seekers to expert legal and other necessary services, i.e. health and education. It recommends that the State party implement a strategy ensuring that asylum seekers have access to essential services, and to ensure that their basic rights are protected.
That is a serious statement from the UN, and we would do well to remember the importance of it.
I am sorry to have to mention that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is keen to ensure that all asylum seekers are imprisoned as soon as they arrive in this country, so that their applications can be processed.
According to the latest information that I have, there are 1,195 asylum seekers held in various establishments around the country. I do not believe that it is necessary to hold those people in detention. I do not believe that it is right to put them in prisons. We should beware of abusing human rights, as those people have not committed any crime; they have merely applied for asylum in this country. The immigration service has an overwhelming power to detain people.
Many asylum seekers are facing poverty. Under the Social Security Act 1986, income support was reduced to 90 per cent. for people seeking asylum. The Government of the day offered no explanation. That has been followed up by the voucher system and the small amount of cash that goes with it, with the result that many asylum seekers and their children are living in desperate poverty.
Many of those people's asylum applications will ultimately be granted. Their children will grow up in this country and will become citizens of this country; they will live here for evermore. What right have we to punish the children of asylum seekers? What right have we to make them live on less than what we know to be the poverty level? Teachers in local primary schools tell me what life is like for asylum-seeking children who do not even get enough to eat.
The Shelter report on the housing of asylum seekers is a welcome document. I have not time to go through all of it, but I shall give the headline facts. Nearly a fifth of all dwellings examined by Shelter were unfit for human habitation; 19 per cent. of occupied dwellings were infested with cockroaches, fleas and bedbugs; nearly half the bedsits were unfit for human habitation; and 83 per cent. of houses in multiple occupation that were visited were exposed to unacceptable fire risks.
Those landlords are making millions out of the asylum system and the misery that goes with it, as they are through the housing benefit system. It is time we got a grip. It is time we imposed rent control on these people, and imposed tough regulation on the conditions in which they make their tenants live. It is outrageous that profits should be made from such conditions in this day and age.
As for the voucher system, it is divisive, inefficient, expensive and entirely ineffective. The other week, a man who had been a prominent professional member of his community told me, with tears in his eyes, that he had been forced to flee his country because of the way he had been treated there. He told me how, having been burnt out of his house at 3 am, he had eventually made his way to this country. Once a week he must walk a long way to a supermarket with his vouchers, because he has not the cash to pay for a bus ticket and he cannot get change. In any event, he cannot get change when he uses the voucher in the supermarket.
I hope the Minister will tell us that the report of the examination of the system will appear soon. I hope she will also say that we will return to a system of cash benefits. That system is more efficient: it often means that children are fed more, and are given more appropriate food.
Finally, let me say something about the economic contribution made by asylum seekers here. Two weeks ago, along with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and a number of others, I attended a meeting of the Tamil community in the House. I knew many of those people: I had known them when they were seeking asylum here in the mid-1980s. The contribution that they have made to this country—the professional work they have done, the way in which they have brought up their families and all the efforts they have made—is a credit to them and their community. Why does the Conservative party consistently denigrate people who seek asylum, and seek to make a contribution to our society?
Many have written much about asylum. I am sorry to say, however, that when the history of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is written, many others will say, "Yes, you rightly remember the victims of the Holocaust and all the horrors that went with it, but what about the people who are now routinely abused and deprived of their human rights? What about those who are forced to flee and to seek a place of safety elsewhere? What about those who are badly treated by racist groups all over Europe, as a matter of routine?"
Can we please have a sense of humanity, and understand just what the abuse of human rights is like for so many people in so many places around the world? Can we put the emphasis on a foreign policy initiative, an economic initiative, to give people better rights and a better standard of living, rather than the constant condemnation of those who merely seek what we all want for ourselves—a decent home, a decent job, enough to eat, and some hope for our children?

Mr. Julian Brazier: Let me say at the outset that I have genuine sympathy for real asylum seekers. I have been to Kosovo and Bosnia, and I helped to organise a conference in Beirut while bombing was going on there. I have no doubt—and figures show this again and again—that a proportion, albeit a minority, of the many people who make asylum claims in this country are genuine cases.
It is, however, difficult to exaggerate the way in which the current tide of refugees claiming asylum status is affecting the country, and will affect the country if the torrent of people with unfounded claims continues. In my east Kent constituency, we are already beginning to run out of options for planning decisions. We have no brownfield sites left; I know of three housing estates that are, at this moment, being built on flood plains. It is absurd to see new houses being built with, in one instance, up to 6 in of water lapping around the doors. Our infrastructure in southern England is overloaded: 100,000 people in a single year will mean 1.5 million over the 15-year planning cycle. Those are not racist considerations; they are the considerations of a country—Britain as a whole—that now has a higher population density than China.

Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brazier: I will not, because of the shortage of time.
Much of Scotland consists of highland country that is not easily built over. England on its own is now nearly as crowded as India, and southern England is particularly crowded. There is a duty—which, to be fair, the Government have recognised—to try to prevent the flow of unfounded asylum applications.
Time considerations force me to confine myself to four concrete points about the workings of the asylum system. First, I firmly believe that we should reintroduce the white list. In the time available, the Library has been able to give me only the figures for the first year after its introduction, but it appears that in that period the number of applicants from democratic countries on the list, where there is little risk of human rights abuse, fell from 7,000 to 5,500 in 1997, although the tide of applications from non-white-list countries was still rising sharply. Surely it makes sense to reintroduce the list.
Let me give an example of a country that I think should be on the white list, if the list still existed. By November 1999, the horrendous exodus of genuine refugees that followed the commencement of bombing in Kosovo had, in terms of numbers, already been reversed; with substantial reconstruction under way, people were returning to their homes. Yet last year people claiming to come from the former Yugoslavia formed the third highest category of applicants for asylum in this country. That cannot be right when we have invested so much time and treasure in trying to make the area secure, especially as there is plenty of evidence that a large proportion of the applicants were Albanians pretending to be Kosovars. I refer to entrants in 2000, not 1999.
My second point relates to the point of entry. The Minister emphasised the imposition of civil penalties on lorries. I think that it is right to accept those penalties now, and I do not believe that there will be another vote on the matter; but if it works to have civil penalties that involve a certain amount of self-regulation, in the long term it must be worth the extra resources to extend spot checks to every lorry. Such a system would pay for itself many times over.
Thirdly, I think that we need a proper mechanism for return. The Select Committee report makes a constructive point that, curiously, has not featured in the debate so far. It points out that there are plenty of relatively stable but very poor third world countries that, in many instances, neighbour the countries we are debating. Surely it must be possible, as part of our overseas development programme—which, rightly, is a large programme by international standards—to offer grants to some of those countries to take some asylum applicants who could comfortably be housed there. The report touches on the point only fairly lightly, although I have dealt with it in more detail, and it proposes consideration of various options.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I remind my hon. Friend that, at paragraph 157 of our report, the Select Committee states:
In particular we ask whether people fleeing persecution in their own country should be found refuge in nearby safe countries rather than in countries far away.
Is not my hon. Friend also making that point?

Mr. Brazier: Precisely; and there is no reason at all why we should not use aid funds to support that.
My fourth and final point is about a court ruling that has not figured at all in the debate. Our international undertakings on asylum, which I take very seriously, must in most circumstances deal with persecution by Governments. If we allow those undertakings to be extended to cases in which people claim that they are persecuted by their neighbours or by criminals—the courts have chosen to do so in various rulings in the past 12 months—we will simply be opening the floodgates. Are we going to say that people living in high-crime areas in the United Kingdom should be able to claim asylum in other parts of the country? We have to take a tough line, and it is reasonable that we do so.
The United Kingdom has a long and honourable record on asylum. It is right that we should have such a record. However, the tensions that are building up in southern England in constituencies such as mine are unacceptable and are working against the interests of racial harmony. [Interruption.] The best way of ensuring racial harmony and decent treatment for the minority of genuine applicants is to tackle abuse by using the measures that I have suggested.

Mr. David Lidington: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), may I enjoin the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) to silence? We do not want a running commentary from a sedentary position.

Mr. Lidington: Like many hon. Members, I regret the lack of time available to debate this subject. One way of dealing with that might be for the Government's business managers to make time available for a debate on the report published yesterday by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
On a first, quick read through, I have been very impressed by the quality of the argument and some of the proposals from the Committee. I tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that, having been Chairman of a Select Committee that managed to produce a unanimous report on asylum subscribed to by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), his future as the Government's special diplomatic envoy must be assured.
One of the matters that the Select Committee and other hon. Members have acknowledged is that external pressures for migration across continents are continuous and are not likely to diminish in future years. They arise partly from the political instability in many countries, especially in the developing world; partly from the natural desire of people who are not entitled to refugee status to move to a place where they can seek a better life for themselves and their families; partly from the availability of relatively cheap international travel compared with previous decades; and partly, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged many times, from the activity of organised criminals—racketeers who trade in human beings.
The Select Committee pointed out that, as well as those external pressures, there are "pull" factors. Paragraph 14 of the Committee's report states:
It is probable that the UK's interpretation of international law and the delay in reaching asylum decisions in recent years have also made the United Kingdom an attractive destination.
The Opposition selected this subject for debate again today because, although we acknowledge the immense difficulties for any Government of any colour in handling the issue, there has been the most remarkable and conspicuous gap between everything that the current Administration promised and what in practice they have been able to deliver.
Something is wrong when, last month, almost one in six asylum applications were from European countries, excluding Turkey from the definition. Something is wrong when, last year, the United Kingdom recorded not only the largest number of asylum applications in our history, but the largest number of applicants of any country in Europe, and—according to figures published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—significantly more than Germany in every month of 2000. On the United Nations method of counting, the figures for the United Kingdom were 97,900, compared with 78,800 for Germany and 43,900 for the Netherlands.
Delay is undoubtedly one of the reasons for that. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister of State repeats the Government's pledge that by 1 April 2001 the backlog of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision will have been reduced to what the Government term "frictional levels". I hope that they succeed, but the record so far gives me considerable cause for doubt.
It is not only Conservative supporters who have been pointing out the relationship between chaos in the administration and decision-making process, and the incentive that it gives people to try their luck in the United Kingdom rather than elsewhere. That issue was addressed directly by Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, of the university

of Oxford, to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred. Professor Goodwin-Gill, who has worked with the UNHCR and has no political axe to grind on the subject, told the Select Committee:
I think one has to recognise that the 70,000 persons we had last year"—
in 1999—
is a function of inefficiency on the part of the present decision-making procedure. There is no doubt that an ineffective and inefficient procedure will act as a magnet.
That is a common-sense view, endorsed by someone who has devoted a considerable part of his career to dealing with the problem in detail.
Something is wrong when, in the first 10 months of 2000, only 8,000 failed asylum seekers were removed from the United Kingdom. In those 10 months, approximately 63,000 new applications were made. Something is wrong when just under 2,000 asylum refusals have been issued against people held at Oakington reception centre, but—according to the Government's evidence to the Select Committee—only 254 of them have been removed or have left voluntarily after those decisions had been taken. It is a matter not only of effectiveness, important though that is, but of humanity.
I should like to deal with a point that the Home Secretary made—that a system that embodies delay, inefficiency and ineffectiveness is unfair to the genuine refugee who has to wait in the queue with everyone else. In practice, a dispersal system that was introduced for perfectly good motives, and that I certainly hoped would work effectively, is causing tremendous difficulties for all types of asylum seekers.
Evidence from the Immigration Advisory Service describes applicants having to travel by night bus from London to another city, then having to wait after a sleepless night for three or five hours before a detailed interview that will be the basis of a decision on their application. I have no idea whether those cases are well founded or not, but that is not a sensible way of organising our asylum policy. That is why a system under which people are housed in secure reception centres with board and lodging and legal advice, and interpretation and translation facilities available, would be not only a deterrent to unfounded asylum claims, but in practice a much more efficient and humane way of dealing with asylum seekers who claim on British soil than the current, shambolic arrangements.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in the borough of Hillingdon? It has the biggest port of entry into the United Kingdom, through which a quarter of the total number of people seeking asylum in the UK come. The number of asylum seekers recorded in the final quarter of last year was larger than in previous quarters, which shows that the dispersal policy is simply not working. Our local authority cannot cope.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes the point about Hillingdon well, and I could support it by saying that Kent is talking about having a backlog of 1,000 asylum seekers in temporary bed-and-breakfast hotels. Moreover, Northamptonshire county council has stated that


the volume of asylum seekers coming to Northamptonshire shows no signs of reducing, despite NASS statements to the contrary following the roll-out of the national dispersal arrangements.
Before I conclude, I want to make one further point of detail, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. It has to do with the Government's much-vaunted figures on the number of initial decisions. What is striking about the figures for 2000 is the number of refusals for what is termed "non-compliance". In practice, that term refers to an applicant's failure to fill in the form correctly.
As I understand it, an applicant has 10 working days to complete and submit a 19-page statement of evidence form, which must be completed in English. Dispersal and the general shambles affecting the administration of the system mean that access to interpreters, translators and legal advisers may be interrupted or even rendered impossible. In 1999, 1,085 claims were rejected on grounds of non-compliance, but the total rose to 26,635 in 2000.
My fear is that perhaps the statistics are being pumped up and made to look good—to look as though many people were having their cases considered and determined and refused—but that in practice the refusal is purely technical. If that is so, there has been no gain, as it means that the substantive consideration of a case has to be dealt with further down the line by the adjudicator at the appeal hearing. That would not be a sensible way to run the system, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) rightly reminded the House of the importance of the central principles of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. It is the one point on which I agree with him. Our asylum system has degenerated into a shambolic state, which reduces our ability to deliver the promises that we signed up to when we acceded to that convention. It also undermines public support for the principle that we should give succour to people who are genuinely fleeing persecution, which the hon. Gentleman was right to argue that we should seek to uphold.
The policies of the present Administration are neither fast, nor firm, nor fair. It is time that we had fresh policies, and a new start.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I shall begin by picking up some themes developed earlier in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He was right to say that asylum poses some of the most acutely difficult ethical problems that he has had to deal with. I am sure that many other hon. Members could say the same. The polarised nature of the debate in our country does us no good at all.
It is appropriate to refer to the 1951 convention in this debate, given last weekend's commemoration of the holocaust. The convention came into being because, after the horrific events of the holocaust and the second world war, people said, "Never, ever again will we turn our backs on those fleeing persecution." I salute the people who drew up the 1951 convention, which we mark and commemorate this year. Our guiding principle must be that we should not turn our backs.
However, the asylum debate is difficult, and it stirs strong emotions. I feel very emotional, and very strongly, about it. That is because the people who framed the 1951 convention and the principles on which it was founded could not have imagined the situation that exists today. Today, we are faced with smuggling, trafficking in human beings and the exploitation of mass travel. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred to that.
The traffic in human beings is a despicable activity. Women are taken for prostitution and children are taken to be used in criminal activity. People make billions of pounds a year from the traffic in human beings.

Ms Sally Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware that Northampton is a major destination for the traffic in human beings, and in particular for people from the former Republic of Yugoslavia? Will she agree to look at the situation, and ensure that the national asylum support service reinstates registration for asylum seekers in Northampton? Registration is due to end tomorrow, but the service is essential if we are to deal with the 15 to 20 people who come into Northampton every week.

Mrs. Roche: I know that my hon. Friend has made representations about that matter before. We have spoken about it, and I shall certainly look at the matter again and take very seriously what she has to say.
For those people who make well founded cases under the convention, we must have a proper process of refugee integration. I am delighted that we now have a national strategy. I chair the working group on that, and it had its first meeting yesterday. However, we must also recognise the difficulties associated with return—difficulties that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) could not resolve. When one turns down a person's application, one must decide how to remove that person.
I cannot say that my aim, when I came into politics, was to remove people from the United Kingdom. It certainly was not my aim, but removal must happen when a person who has made an unfounded application reaches the end of the process. It can be very difficult. For some countries in eastern Europe, there is no problem at all but, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we are now dealing with some of the most difficult countries in the world. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said about the need for moderation in this area. However, I must tell him that that is why we need increased detention space at the end of the process.
I turn now to some of the other points made in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who, speaking on asylum for the first time from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, made a very good speech. She was right to refer to the Shelter report. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald would not allow me to intervene to point out that the report was compiled before the Government's system came into operation. Of course people have to be housed properly, and we need high standards to ensure that the housing is available.
The hon. Member for Taunton asked me a very important question about cases involving Afghanistan. The problem that she raised highlights how right the Home Secretary was to talk, in his Lisbon speech, about the need to view the 1951 convention in the modern context.
I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said about his constituency, which borders my own. In both our constituencies, many people from all over the world are seeking asylum. It is important that we look after people properly while their claims are being processed, and that is our aim.
I very much welcomed the speech by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), and what he had to say about his support for the civil penalty. I thought that his remarks about returns and the need to see the problem in the context of international development were very well made. I understand completely what the hon. Gentleman said; he demonstrated his understanding of this complex procedure.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She heard the quote that I gave from the Select Committee's recommendations about dealing with the victims of persecution in the region where they suffer persecution, a point that the Home Secretary mentioned. Do the Government propose to take that recommendation forward, as it would unquestionably help to alleviate some of the pressure on the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The whole debate, which is being addressed by the European Union, and by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its worldwide consultation on the convention, has been taken forward as a result of the Home Secretary's speech in Lisbon. In the developed world, we spend a fantastic sum of money on considering and processing applications for asylum. In the developing world, which has the majority of asylum seekers and refugees, we spend comparatively little. Of course there is an imbalance, but many other factors apply.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke about dispersal. The national asylum support service replaces the shambolic arrangements previously in place, under which many boroughs in London and the south-east could not cope. We think that the system is working reasonably well. That does not mean to say that there are no teething difficulties, as there are with any new organisation. However, what Shelter has to say about standards shows that NASS officials should be congratulated on their very hard work.
As far as the backlog is concerned, the hon. Gentleman talked about non-compliance refusals—but before we put standards in place, there were none. Under the previous Administration, files were simply left to gather dust on the shelves of the immigration and nationality directorate. There was no processing whatsoever. That is why we have made 110,000 decisions in the past year—the largest number of decisions that the Home Office has ever taken.
The House will probably debate no more important moral issue than how we treat asylum seekers and deal with the problem of refugees. We must ensure not only that we get the statistics right, but that we place the issue in an international context. We are determined to deal with the problem and are putting measures in place to do so.
I commend the Government's amendment to the House.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 304.

Division No. 97]
[4.3


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Leigh, Edward


Amess, David
Letwin, Oliver


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lidington, David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Loughton, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Luff, Peter


Beggs, Roy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bercow, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Madel, Sir David


Boswell, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maples, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Brady, Graham
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Brazier, Julian
Moss, Malcolm


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Ottaway, Richard


Burns, Simon
Page, Richard


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Paice, James



Pickles, Eric


Chope, Christopher
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Prior, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey



Collins, Tim
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Robathan, Andrew


Cran James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Day, Stephen
Ruffley, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
St Aubyn, Nick


Duncan, Alan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Duncan Smith, lain
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Evans, Nigel
Shepherd, Richard


Faber, David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fabricant, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Flight, Howard
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fowler, Fit Hon Sir Norman
Spring, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gale, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Garnier, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Gibb, Nick
Syms, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gray, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Townend, John


Grieve, Dominic
Tredinnick, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Hayes, John
Walter, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Waterson, Nigel


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whittingdale, John


Hunter, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Yeo, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. John Randall and


Lansley, Andrew
Mr. Peter Atkinson.






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Darvill, Keith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Alexander, Douglas
Davidson, Ian


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Atkins, Charlotte



Bailey, Adrian
Denham, John


Baker, Norman
Dobbin, Jim


Ballard, Jackie
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Banks, Tony
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Dowd, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Drew, David


Battle, John
Drown, Ms Julia


Bayley, Hugh
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Edwards, Huw


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Efford, Clive


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bennett, Andrew F
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Best, Harold
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Flint, Caroline


Blears, Ms Hazel
Flynn, Paul


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Borrow, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Fyfe, Maria


Brand, Dr Peter
Galloway, George


Breed, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gidley, Sandra


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burnett, John
Godsiff, Roger


Burstow, Paul
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grogan, John


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caton, Martin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cawsey, Ian
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chidgey, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Clapham, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John



Heath, David (Somerton & Frorne)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hendrick, Mark


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clwyd, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Coleman, lain
Hood, Jimmy


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Cooper, Yvette
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cotter, Brian
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jenkins, Brian



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair






Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Joyce, Eric
Pond, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rammell, Bill


Lammy, David
Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Laxton, Bob
Rendel, David


Lepper, David
Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Livsey, Richard
Rogers, Allan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rooney, Terry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Rowlands, Ted


Love, Andrew
Roy, Frank


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ryan, Ms Joan



Salter, Martin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mclsaac, Shona
Shipley, Ms Debra


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Singh, Marsha


Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWalter, Tony



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mallaber, Judy
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stinchcombe, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Merron, Gillian
Stringer, Graham


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stunell, Andrew


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin



Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moore, Michael
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Timms, Stephen


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Mountford, Kali
Todd, Mark


Mudie, George
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mullin, Chris
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tynan, Bill


O'Hara, Eddie
Walley, Ms Joan


Olner, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Öpik, Lembit
Webb, Steve


Organ, Mrs Diana
White, Brian






Whitehead, Dr Alan
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wray, James



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wilson, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Clive Betts

Question accordingly negatived

Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31(Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 152.

Division No. 98]
[4.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Alexander, Douglas
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Allen, Graham



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Atkins, Charlotte
Darvill, Keith


Bailey, Adrian
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Denham, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dobbin, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bennett, Andrew F
Doran, Frank


Benton, Joe
Dowd, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Drew, David


Best, Harold
Drown, Ms Julia


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caton, Martin
Fyfe, Maria


Cawsey, Ian
Galloway, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Barry


Clapham, Michael
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gerrard, Neil



Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Ann
Grogan, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cohen, Harry
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coleman, lain
Hanson, David


Colman, Tony
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cooper, Yvette
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbett, Robin
Hendrick, Mark


Corston, Jean
Hepburn, Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Heppell, John


Cox, Tom
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cranston, Ross
Hinchliffe, David





Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Howells, Dr Kim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian
Plaskitt, James


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Joyce, Eric
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rammell, Bill


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Khabra, Piara S
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kidney, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rogers, Allan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rooney, Terry


Lammy, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rowlands, Ted


Laxton, Bob
Roy, Frank


Lepper, David
Ruddock, Joan


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Salter, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Love, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCabe, Steve
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Singh, Marsha


McDonagh, Siobhain
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mclsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mackinlay, Andrew



McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McNulty, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


MacShane, Denis
Steinberg, Gerry


McWalter, Tony
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mallaber, Judy
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stringer, Graham


Martlew, Eric
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Timms, Stephen


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Mitchell, Austin
Todd, Mark


Moffatt, Laura
Touhig, Don


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Truswell, Paul


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Tynan, Bill


Mountford, Kali
Walley, Ms Joan


Mudie, George
Ward, Ms Claire






Wareing, Robert N
Woolas, Phil


White, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wray, James


Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wyatt, Derek


Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Harris, Dr Evan


Amess, David
Harvey, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hayes, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Heald, Oliver


Baker, Norman
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Baldry, Tony
Horam, John


Ballard, Jackie
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beggs, Roy
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Beresford, Sir Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Blunt, Crispin
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Body, Sir Richard
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Boswell, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lansley, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Leigh, Edward


Brand, Dr Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Breed, Colin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Livsey, Richard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Loughton, Tim


Burnett, John
Luff, Peter


Burns, Simon
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burstow, Paul
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cable, Dr Vincent
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert



McLoughlin, Patrick


Chidgey, David
Madel, Sir David


Chope, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Clappison, James
Maples, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Collins, Tim
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cotter, Brian
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Öpik, Lembit


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Flight, Howard
Rendel, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fox, Dr Liam
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gale, Roger
Ruffley, David


Gamier, Edward
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gidley, Sandra
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gray, James
Soames, Nicholas


Green, Damian
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





Steen, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Swayne, Desmond
Walter, Robert


Syms, Robert
Wardle, Charles


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Webb, Steve


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wilkinson, John


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. John Randall and


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House reaffirms the obligations of the United Kingdom under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to provide asylum for those fleeing from a well-founded fear of persecution; approves the Government's strategy for reform of the asylum system and welcomes the practical improvements which have already been delivered, including substantial additional investment to provide the Immigration and Nationality Directorate with the staff and other resources essential to operate an efficient and humane asylum system; congratulates the Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff on their recent achievements including taking 110,000 initial asylum decisions in 2000; welcomes the effect which the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and other measures have had in reducing unfounded asylum claims; welcomes the successful introduction of a coherent, national system of support for asylum seekers to replace the chaotic arrangements created by the previous Government which imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities in London and the South-East; notes that the civil penalty, a measure which was opposed by the Official Opposition, has successfully encouraged hauliers and ferry operators to introduce additional security measures to tackle clandestine and illegal entry to the United Kingdom; welcomes the Government's expansion of detention capacity to support substantial increases in the number of asylum seekers with unfounded claims who are removed from the UK; and supports the Government's commitment to working closely with other countries to deal more effectively with asylum pressures affecting the whole of Europe.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate that we have just concluded was foreshortened by the very important statement made before it began. Nevertheless, in 111 minutes of debate, only 19 minutes were left for Back-Bench contributions, so that many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wanted to take part were unable to do so. I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you cannot control the length of Front-Bench speeches, but in your role as guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, might you seek to use some influence in that matter so that it does not happen again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says, but as he will appreciate, it is not a point of order for the Chair. In recent years, it has become a convention that Oppositions split Supply days; that in itself reduces the amount of time for Back Benchers. There were obvious reasons why the statement was made today. I know that it is usual for the Government of the day to try to avoid statements on Opposition Supply days, but there was a powerful reason for that particular statement. Perhaps I should waste no more time by adding to that.

Crisis in Agriculture

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That this House expresses its profound concern about the crisis in British agriculture, demonstrated by the collapse in farm incomes and loss of jobs; notes that, since the launch of the Government's Action Plan for Farming, incomes have continued to fall and many of the promises remain unfulfilled; condemns the Government for its failure to address this crisis and for its damaging policies which have made matters even worse; and calls on the Government to end the competitive disadvantage suffered by British farmers as a result of red tape, gold-plating and over-regulation, to introduce honesty in food-labelling and to restrict the flow of sub-standard food imports.
I welcome the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Dispatch Box for what may be his last speech in the House in a general agricultural debate. I pay tribute to the almost unfailing courtesy that he has shown during the two and a half years that he and I have debated such matters. I also pay tribute to his genuine willingness to listen to farmers and their problems, which is in happy contrast to the attitude adopted by his immediate predecessor. Sadly, most of what the right hon. Gentleman has done stopped at that point—at listening rather than acting.
In the two and a half years since the right hon. Gentleman was appointed, he has spoken in seven major debates on agriculture—no fewer than six of which were called by the Opposition. This is the first agriculture debate in the House since July. It is six long months since we last discussed the subject—six months characterised by terrible weather and more pressure on farm incomes.
Labour's reluctance to discuss the worst crisis in agriculture for two generations is odd for a party that keeps claiming to represent the countryside.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On the point about debates, it is my recollection that a Conservative Opposition day debate on agriculture£because of the pressing need for such a debate£was scheduled for 13 July, but was dropped at the last minute. It was rescheduled for today. Could not the hon. Gentleman have rescheduled his debate a little sooner?

Mr. Yeo: We actually held a debate in July. If that is the best that the Minister can offer to justify his refusal to come to the House and debate these issues in Government time, it will be regarded as pretty thin gruel by those people in the industry who are suffering the consequences of his policy.
It is not only in Parliament that the Minister is so reluctant to discuss agriculture; last autumn, at the Labour party conference, he made a speech in which he referred to shipbuilding and coal mining, but did not once mention dairy farmers or pig farmers. That is an appalling reflection of his priorities and those of his party. It makes it clear to Britain's rural communities that Labour simply does not care whether farming survives as an important industry.
Labour do not merely refuse to discuss the crisis; they refuse to do anything about it—or, on the rare occasions when they do, they make matters worse rather than better.
Since 1997, farm incomes have fallen by three quarters. Even the Minister admits that they are at their lowest level in real terms since the 1930s, and yesterday's figures showed that average total incomes for farmers are down to just over £5,000 a year. In each of the last two years in Britain, some 20,000 jobs in farming have been lost and every day 60 people leave the industry. The arable, dairy, pig, beef and sheep sectors have all suffered—none has escaped. When fanning struggles, the whole rural economy is damaged and the countryside environment starts to deteriorate.
While this human, social and economic tragedy is devastating rural communities throughout Britain, the only countryside issue that Labour wants to talk about in Parliament is hunting. Labour's attack on hunting is a bone thrown by a cynical Prime Minister to the class warriors on his Back Benches to keep them occupied until the election. It is a disgraceful attempt to divert attention away from the real problems facing the countryside. The past two weeks have exposed more clearly than ever before the deceit and dishonesty at the very top of this Labour Government—deceit and dishonesty with which farmers have been living for years.

Charlotte Atkins: The Labour Government have provided £650 million in agrimonetary compensation. How much did the previous Tory Government provide to farmers?

Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has clearly relied on a Whips' handout. However, let us use it to nail a myth once and for all. The agrimonetary compensation regime started three months before the last election. The Government have had 10 months in the current year to decide whether to take up all the available agrimonetary compensation. They have to decide that against a background of farm incomes that are a quarter of the level they were in 1997. There is not a shred of evidence that the Minister, of all people, would have decided—in the space of only three months, when farm incomes were four times their current level—to take up any agrimonetary compensation at all. It is scandalous that farmers still do not know whether the compensation will be taken up in the current year.
The purpose of the two packages that the Minister announced in 1999 and again last year was not to help agriculture; it was to help the Government win headlines. In September 1999, the Minister announced what he claimed was £537 million of new aid for agriculture. All but £150 million of that was already due to British farmers under the common agricultural policy and, of the rest, £89 million was temporary exemption from charges that the Labour Government had introduced and £60 million maintained the previous level of support for hill farmers. That left just £1 million of actual new money from a package worth half a billion pounds.
In March last year, the Minister was at it again, and this time he was joined by the Prime Minister. The Downing street summit produced a new package called the "action plan for farming", which Labour claimed this time was £203 million of cash help for farmers—another claim that turned out to be bogus. Part of what Labour said was cash help for farmers turned out to be simply a promise not to raise meat hygiene inspection charges by more than the rate of inflation.
That package included £66 million in agrimonetary compensation for the weak euro, which was not extra at all. It was actually a cut of £76 million compared with what had been spent in the previous year. It included again the £60 million of help for hill farmers, again simply maintaining the existing level of support. It included £26 million to help pig farmers restructure, and not a penny of that money has been spent. The best that the Minister can do about that is a bit of vague waffle this morning about trying to carry the money forward to next year. The package also included money under the Small Business Service and the redundant building grant programme, scarcely any of which has been taken up 10 months later.

Mr. Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being a little bit mean-spirited in not giving us the credit for the increase in hill farm allowances—the £60 million year on year for three years. He said that it was money that was already there, but it was put there by the incoming Labour Government; it was not there under the previous Conservative Government. In any event, the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is clearly that more money should be spent on farming. How much more money should be spent, and how would that square with a policy of cutting taxation and reducing public expenditure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I call for brief interventions in what is a short debate?

Mr. Yeo: The thrust of my remarks is that twice in the past two years, against a background of an industry facing its worst crisis for two generations, the Minister has made a great public relations and presentational triumph out of announcing hundreds of millions of pounds of what he calls new money. On examination, it turns out to be merely a continuation of the previous year's expenditure, or money that never sees the light of day.

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Yeo: The Minister will have his chance to speak later.
I want the truth about the money that the Minister is spending, instead of the claims that he is helping farmers when he is doing nothing of the sort. The two packages were stuffed full of false promises; they were cynically designed to deceive the public into thinking something was being done for an industry on its knees. They were packages presented without a care for the damage that raising hopes and then dashing them has on the morale of individual farmers struggling to earn a living for their families. In December 1999, the Select Committee on Agriculture concluded:
The Minister should take care not to give false hope to farmers.
How right it was.
The story of the past two years is the story of Labour's missing millions—money promised to farmers that turned out not to exist. The prospects for 2001 do not look much better. There has been a very small improvement in some product prices, but incomes remain tightly squeezed. Labour has still not claimed all the agrimonetary

compensation available this year. There are less than three months left to secure £200 million for the industry and, during oral questions this morning, the Minister refused to say whether he would claim it.

Mr. James Plaskitt: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the previous Conservative Government had the opportunity to take £500 million in agrimonetary compensation but did not take it?

Mr. Yeo: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). I have explained the answer, and I shall not waste time explaining it again. It is on the record in Hansard.However, I give the pledge today that, as long as the Conservative election victory comes before 30 April—the last day for claiming the money—we will claim every penny of it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he expects will happen when the agrimonetary regime runs out in two years. The first act of the next Conservative Agriculture Minister will be to start talks about what will replace that regime.
Not content with misleading farmers, Labour is up to its old trick of increasing the burdens on them. The pre-Budget report published by the Chancellor last November confirmed his continuing support for a pesticide tax. The horticulture industry is threatened with the climate change levy, which is yet another stealth tax penalising British employers, and one that the next Conservative Government will repeal. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary says that abolishing that tax means that more money will have to be found. That is interesting, because the Government pledged that the money raised by the climate change levy would be entirely recycled to other businesses. Perhaps the Minister has blown the gaff on the Government's post-election plan for the proceeds from the climate change levy.
Horticulture faces another new burden through the proposed extension of the licensing scheme to previously unregulated trickle-in irrigation. In the arable sector, Labour supported the everything but arms proposal, which would have damaged growers of sugar, one of the few remaining profitable crops. Beef producers have been undermined by Labour's refusal to restrict imports of beef from cattle over 30 months old entering Britain following the collapse of confidence in beef in France and Germany.
In that case, it is not only farmers who suffer, but consumers. Inch by painful inch, we extracted the truth from the Minister about the lack of protection for British consumers, such as the absence of checks at ports of entry and the inadequacy of the paperwork attaching to imports. Processed beef products containing beef from cattle over 30 months old are being imported and sold here, but we would have known none of that from the story that the Minister was telling last year.
In Parliament last April, the Minister said:
The fact is that we do not allow meat products over 30 months to be imported into this country."£[Official Report,13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 485.]
A week later, he wrote to me and said:
The sale of meat and meat products from cattle over 30 months in this country is banned…It is untrue and irresponsible to imply that UK consumers are exposed to dangerous imports.


Seven months later, the Minister said:
This country's public protection measures, which are very powerful, include a ban on selling any beef product derived from animals that are over 30 months."—[Official Report, 16 November; Vol. 356, c. 1053.]
Unfortunately, every one of those statements turned out to be wrong.
Professor Harriet Kimbell, a member of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, pointed out before Christmas that the ban on over-30-months meat applied only to fresh meat, which is a crucial distinction. She said:
The regulations are not as we thought they were. It is highly likely that meat from cattle over 30 months old is being sold in this country.
Finally, the Minister himself came clean in a letter to me on 10 January. He said that the Food Standards Agency had
explained that the Over 30 Month Rule is difficult to police on imports. It is also the case that this rule does not apply to the sale of imported processed products.
How lucky that the Minister gave his answers in Parliament. Imagine where he might be now if he had given them to Alastair Campbell. It is the old story: the Minister is the farmer's friend as long as the farmer is foreign. Labour is always ready to crack down on British farmers, but it never acts against imports, perhaps for fear of upsetting its friends in France, who have been so incredibly helpful over the sale of safe, healthy British beef. No matter what France does, legally or illegally, to undermine Britain's farmers or to put Britain's consumers at risk, the Minister will never lift a finger against France.
The whole countryside is now in crisis. That crisis has been made worse by Labour's neglect and hostility, by fuel taxes that uniquely damage rural communities and by cuts in the police that leave our villages unprotected. In thirteen weeks, in all probability, the British people will have their chance to save the countryside. Much will need to be done urgently by the incoming Conservative Government. In our first days in office, we shall take three steps, none of which will cost a penny of taxpayers' money.
First, we shall lift the burden of red tape and regulation now strangling Britain's farm and food industry. We fully endorse the conclusions of Lord Haskins's better regulation task force. We shall stop the gold-plating of regulations. We shall stop enforcing European directives, such as that on integrated pollution prevention and control, sooner and in a tougher manner than other countries.
If the Minister wants to show that he is concerned about red tape, he could start with the European charging directive in his Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001, a statutory instrument laid in the past few days. In those regulations, the words "may be" in the European law relating to extra inspection charges payable by food processors are changed to "shall be" in Britain. That typical example of gold-plating by the Government has nothing to do with the European Union. Incidentally, the people who will be affected by those regulations were given two days to comment on a draft that Ministers had taken six months to prepare.
Our second step will be to introduce honesty in food labelling so that consumers know the country of origin and the method of production of the food that they buy.

Selling food that purports to be British when it contains not a single item grown in this country is simply a fraud on consumers. As fears have grown about the safety of imported beef, Ministers and the Food Standards Agency have suggested that consumers should decide for themselves whether to eat it. However, those Ministers have prevented consumers from being given the information on which they could base that choice.
The third step is to restrict the import of food that is produced in ways that are not permitted in the United Kingdom. There are persistent reports that some of the poultry from the far east is reared using growth-promoting drugs that are banned throughout Europe on health grounds. It is wrong that our farmers should be placed at a competitive disadvantage and that our consumers are put at risk because of Labour's refusal to challenge these imports.

Mr. Nick Brown: On that, at least, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he has hard evidence, will he please give it to me?

Mr. Yeo: The Minister said earlier today that it was open to the European Union to inspect the plants in which such food is produced. It is interesting, however, that he relies on the Food Standards Agency and not the EU to tell us whether imported food is correct or not. Is he confirming that the agency has no intention of inspecting any of the plants? That will not fill consumers with much confidence about the care with which assurances are being given.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Ribble valley farmers are of a mind that, whereas we comply with all the rules and directives that we sign up to, farmers in the rest of Europe seem to be under a new and lax regime. Will my hon. Friend ensure that under the next Conservative Government, the rules and directives that countries sign up to will be properly enforced?

Mr. Yeo: The lack of enforcement of existing rules in many European countries is one of the scandals of the EU. Instead of endlessly seeking to pass new laws and to extend its regulatory powers, the Commission should try to ensure that existing regulations are enforced in a timely and even-handed manner throughout the EU.
Above all, farming needs a Government who will stand up for its interests, insist that the public sector buys only food that meets British standards, help the organic sector by leading the way towards a common international standard, recognise the problems facing older farmers by introducing a retirement scheme for tenants, and protect the integrity of existing farms by exercising proper controls over genetically modified crop trials, instead of doing the bidding of their friends in big business and allowing the commercial planting of GM crops before their environmental effects are understood.
It is time to end the scandal of Labour's missing millions. Cash is promised to the farmers and then taken back by the Treasury. It is time to treat farmers as grown-ups in an industry that is fighting for survival, rather than as victims to be duped by Labour spin doctors. Farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the countryside need a Government who believe that the survival of agriculture is important to the future of Britain. Conservatives believe that, and I commend the motion to the House.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
recognises the continuing difficulties faced by the agriculture sector as a result of the low level of farm incomes; endorses the Government's long term vision for agriculture as sustainable, competitive and diverse, environmentally responsible, and an integral part of vibrant rural economies; recognises the important role of the new Rural Development Programmes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in delivering this vision; welcomes the measures in the Action Plan for Farming and the Rural White Paper to give immediate financial relief to the hardest-hit sectors and to reduce the burden of regulation on farming; supports the Government's constructive engagement in Europe to reform further the Common Agricultural Policy; notes that the Conservative party's policies of banning foreign imports and taking unilateral action in areas of European Union competence are illegal and would lead to heavy penalties being levied on UK taxpayers as well as retaliatory action against UK exporters; notes that the Conservative Party have not indicated how much of the £16 billion they propose in public expenditure cuts would fall on British farmers; and calls on the Conservative Party instead to come forward with practical and constructive policies to help farmers through very difficult times.
I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for choosing agriculture for the Opposition Supply day and for his first two sentences. After that, I thought that his speech rather fell away.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to express his good wishes for my future. He commented that this may be the last time I appear at the Dispatch Box as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Unless he knows something that I do not—I think that unlikely in this context—I expect to be at the Government Dispatch Box on 15 February to discuss a matter of enormous importance to agriculture, a matter for which the Conservative party can properly take a great deal of—[Interruption.] I am not sure that credit would be quite the right word. I shall explain the Government's response to the Phillips report and the national tragedy of BSE. It is very much an agriculture issue, and I expect to be in my place to discuss it.
I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not go so far as to say that, on my departure he expected to succeed me. I know that the farming community will be grateful for that.
It is clear that British fanning continues to suffer from a severe and prolonged downturn; there is no quarrel between us on that. The principal causes are widely agreed on, although one would not have learned that from the speech of the hon. Member for South Suffolk. Those causes are low world commodity prices, the weakness of the euro and the continuing impact of BSE, not just on the beef sector, but right across the livestock sector. I acknowledge further recent difficulties, including the outbreak of swine fever in East Anglia, widespread flooding of agricultural land and increases in world oil prices.
I want to set out what the Government have done to help, and explain our long-term strategy for the future.

Mr. Tom King: May I just clear up a certain point? The Minister has often said that he will do what he can to help, although he also asks what he can do, given the restrictions. Agrimonetary compensation is one thing that can be tackled, and every Government must

examine that against the background of agricultural circumstances. The Minister has announced that the hourly wage rate in agriculture is now about £1, if a profit is being made. The position is desperate: he spoke about a downturn, and there may well not be an upturn.
The Minister knows that the Chancellor has a substantial budget surplus. Surely now is the time when, if the Minister wishes to keep agriculture going, agrimonetary compensation should be asked for.

Mr. Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have a lot of sympathy for that. Since the Labour party came to power, we have spent £629 million on agrimonetary compensation. The right hon. Gentleman will know that when the president of the National Fanners Union and the chairman of the NFU arable sector committee came to see me last autumn and made the case for agrimonetary compensation in the arable sector, I was able to add to the mandatory payments—which I negotiated to be mandatory—part of the voluntary amount as well. I know that that was welcomed by the sector.
That is the first time any Government have paid out voluntary agrimonetary compensation in the arable sector. We did that in recognition of the difficult times that the arable sector in the area represented by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), among others, was going through. Those things are judged on a case-by-case basis. The right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister and knows that, in government, expenditure under the regime has to be argued for against competing claims for public expenditure. I put the case for the industry when I think it justified, and I have fought for it very hard indeed in recent circumstances, as the NFU and others, including Members of Parliament with constituency interests, have made a case for it. However, I cannot make an announcement in today's debate.
Since coming to office, the Government have provided short-term assistance worth £1.2 billion, which includes agrimonetary compensation of £289 million to arable farmers, £236 million to beef farmers, £82 million to sheep farmers and £22 million to dairy farmers. To answer the intervention of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, because of the difficulties in the dairy sector, last year we drew down every single penny that was available across the agrimonetary regime.
We have allocated an extra £300 million to hill farmers, above the level of hill farming grants that we inherited from the previous Government—I made that point in my intervention on the hon. Member for South Suffolk. We have offset a range of regulatory charges, including those for cattle passports, specified risk material inspections and dairy hygiene inspections. We have increased payments under the over-30-months scheme by lifting the weight limit for cattle entered in the scheme. The NFU especially asked us to do that, and we have responded.
We have dramatically increased grants available for organic conversion, processing and marketing projects, and the conversion of redundant farm buildings. We have opened a new pig industry restructuring scheme, which will provide grants to outgoers reducing capacity and ongoers seeking to make their operations more efficient. We successfully contained and eliminated the recent swine fever outbreak in East Anglia and invented from scratch the pig welfare disposal scheme to give unprecedented compensation to pig farmers affected by


movement restrictions. Those are not the pig farmers who suffered directly from the classical swine fever outbreak, but those who were affected by the movement restrictions that were necessary to control it.
In November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the abolition of vehicle excise duty on tractors and agricultural vehicles and the halving of excise duty on lorries. He is freezing all road fuel and oil duties and, as the House knows, he will be cutting by 3p a litre duty on ultra-low sulphur diesel and petrol. Furthermore, in the light of the severe difficulties caused to farmers by recent flooding, we have proposed to allow some flexibility in CAP scheme rules so that those who suffered from flooding do not lose their subsidy payments. I am pleased to tell the House that Commissioner Franz Fischler has written to confirm that those exceptional changes can be made.
In partnership with the Small Business Service and business links, we have launched the farm business advice service. In the service's first four months, almost 3,000 farmers have requested consultations and more than 1,300 initial consultation visits have been made. However, whatever action we take to help farmers through in the short term, a longer-term strategy is needed. I understand that the political cycle is coming to a close and that the hon. Member for South Suffolk wishes to make a robust contribution. However, his remarks did not make the Conservatives' long-term strategy clear to me. Indeed, I suspect that they did not do so for any hon. Member.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am willing to give way, but I hope that the hon. Member who intervenes will provide an answer.

Mr. John Hayes: The sort of long-term vision and strategic perspective on agriculture that the Secretary of State describes has been continually called for by the Select Committee on Agriculture, virtually ever since the Government came to power. When I was a member of that Select Committee—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who will also remember this, is present—it asked the previous Minister and the current Minister to provide exactly such a vision. What does the Minister envisage with regard to the number of farmers who will work in the sector, and to production levels over five or 10 years? Those are the questions that need to be answered. Will he answer them today?

Mr. Brown: Oddly enough, I was about to give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he seeks, but I was wondering whether somebody would first spell out the Conservative party's vision.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Now that the European Commission has published a damning report on the French Government's failure to take effective measures to stop the spread of BSE, is there not an unanswerable case that the Commission should impose an embargo on French meat? If it will not take such action, does not the Minister owe it to consumers and farmer

alike to impose a ban on importing French meat? Those would be practical steps and he could take them. We would do so; will he?

Mr. Brown: In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, that is a partial response—protectionism and a trade war.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Before the Secretary of State completes his self-congratulatory list of all the things that he claims to have done to redress problems in agriculture—problems that are at least partly of his own making—will he tell the House whether he will add in the tax income forgone by his Government? The collapse in farm profits means that the Treasury has had no profits to tax.

Mr. Brown: The list is not intended to be self-congratulatory. Nobody has yet explained how the problems that I have outlined, including BSE, flat world commodity prices and the weakness of the euro, are my personal fault. I shall wait to hear the hon. Gentleman's thesis on that point. We should not be quarrelling over forgone tax or the need to return farm businesses to profitability and to ensure a decent return on the work and capital that are put in.

Mr. Richard Livsey: There is one issue with which the Minister has not wholly dealt. According to the National Farmers Union, £202 million in agrimonetary compensation can be claimed by the end of April. Is he going to get that money?

Mr. Brown: We have just had that discussion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman came in a bit late. I confirm that the figure to which he referred is approximately correct, although we will not know the final figures until later in the month.

Mr. David Prior: The Conservatives would do two things. First, we would insist on radical reform of the common agricultural policy. Secondly, we would exclude sugar from the everything but arms talks that are currently under way.

Mr. Brown: I knew that if I tried hard enough, we would get there. The hon. Gentleman makes two strong points. Reform of the common agricultural policy has to be at the heart of any strategy that the British Government adopt. Moreover, that should not divide us; the previous Conservative Government pursued a reform agenda. I gently point out that pursuing it by quarrelling with all the partners whose support one hopes to gain is not the best way to proceed. At least they pursued such an agenda, however.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) is right. We have an essentially protectionist regime for the sugar sector. Sugar is produced in the European Union at approximately three times the world market price. We produce 40 per cent. more than we consume and we get rid of the surplus with export refunds on the international market, much to the distress of our major trading partners, who would also like to sell to those markets at real rather than supported prices. In those circumstances, it is not sensible to open the market to large amounts of the product at a lower price. It would simply cause more disruption.
The hon. Gentleman is right; reform of the sugar regime and the everything but arms initiative must be considered together. It would not be consistent to retain one policy without reforming the other.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: No, I must make progress.

Mr. Evans: On a small point.

Mr. Brown: How can one resist?

Mr. Evans: The Minister is courteous, as ever. I have asked him several times about farming in the Ribble valley, but I shall change tack a little. On Friday, I was with Mr. Eddie Topping of Barton Grange, a horticulturist in my constituency. He employs 35 people in winter and 70 people in summer. He says that the introduction of the climate change levy will have an enormous knock-on effect on horticulture in this country. We will scrap that levy. Will the Minister campaign to persuade the Chancellor to abolish the climate change levy?

Mr. Brown: The levy is supposed to be neutral, as was pointed out earlier. If it is Opposition policy to scrap the levy, they will not be able to spend the fruits of it. Their policy must also be to adjust national insurance accordingly.

Mr. Evans: rose—

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) can tell me whether that is correct.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister direct his remarks to horticulture, which will be hit by the climate change levy? He knows that the introduction of that stealth tax will affect employment in the industry. What will he do about it?

Mr. Brown: It is inevitable that the hon. Gentleman wants to stress the part of the debate that he believes will tell for the Conservative party, but he is not willing to face the consequences. That characterises Conservative policy generally. The Opposition urge me to spend more money, and they say that they will cut taxes and reduce public expenditure. I presume that they will not cut expenditure on agriculture.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the horticulture sector. We were engaged in discussions with the Chancellor before the climate change levy was introduced. We secured concessionary arrangements for horticulture, and I am in continuing dialogue with those in the sector to ascertain what more can be done to achieve the Government's objectives, as well as those of the industry.

Mr. Evans: They do not want to pay that tax.

Mr. Brown: That is not unusual. If one asks people whether they want to pay tax, they tend to say no. Well done the Conservative party for discovering that.

However, there are consequences when people do not pay taxes. The Opposition should spend a little time considering that. I do not know whether the Conservative party still bothers to address the electorate as an audience. However, the electorate will not find the Opposition's policies plausible. On every aspect of Government spending, they call for more, while claiming that they will spend less overall and be able to cut taxation. Such an achievement would be miraculous. I await the day when someone spells out how it can be done.
Let me discuss what needs to be done to help British agriculture in the medium term. Reform of the common agricultural policy is needed. It is an expensive instrument, which costs the British approximately £8 billion a year. Agricultural protectionism is unsustainable in the face of remorseless trends towards further trade liberalisation. There was a time, although perhaps this does not apply now, when such a remark would not have been exceptional coming from Conservative Members. Now, they look at me as though it were a terrible thing to say.
Most importantly, as I think we can all agree, the common agricultural policy is failing to deliver its objectives of ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers and reasonably priced food for consumers. It encourages over production, leading to food surpluses and widespread degradation of the rural environment. In 1999, the Agenda 2000 reforms signalled the beginnings of a new common agricultural policy based around the instruments of the rural development regulation.
The Government are strongly committed to what is known as the second pillar of the CAP. We have committed an extra £472 million over seven years—that is extra money—for rural development programmes across the United Kingdom, of which £300 million is extra money—the match funding for modulation—for England.
The England rural development programme is an ambitious combination of environmental and economic development measures. It will cost £1.6 billion over seven years. That represents a 60 per cent. increase in the baseline expenditure. Spending on the countryside stewardship scheme will increase more than fourfold. Spending on organic farming will be tripled. Spending on farm woodlands will double, and we are reintroducing the processing and marketing grants scrapped under the previous Government. There will be new measures, such as a £152 million rural enterprise scheme, and new money for training and for the development of energy crops.
The rural White Paper contains further measures to help farmers. The Government are revising planning guidance so that it will be easier for farmers to make successful applications for diversification projects. We plan to grant time-limited rate relief for farm diversification projects.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I will give way, although there is a lot of pressure from other hon. Members to speak in the debate.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He mentioned organic farming and the rural White Paper for England. For the first time, there is an acceptance of a target for organic farming buried in the


detail. Will the Minister consider developing that into a more ambitious target and developing the action plan needed to achieve it? Will he consider doing that early in the next Parliament?

Mr. Brown: The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are forecast outcomes, not targets. Indeed, the Select Committee has cautioned against setting targets. There might be consensus in the House on that, although perhaps not entirely. I understand that there are similar arrangements in place in other parts of the United Kingdom. In any event, we all envisage an expansion in the amount of farming given over to organic farming, for three good reasons: it is environmentally friendly; it is what consumers want, and it is right that the Government should try to underpin consumer choice; and it is an economically rational way forward for farmers, because of the premium that organically produced goods command in the marketplace. Those are the reasons for providing support for organic farming.
The Government are doing more. On small abattoirs, the Food Standards Agency will be implementing the recommendations of the Maclean report on meat hygiene service charging. We are improving public services such as transport, health care and education in rural areas. We are providing more affordable housing for rural communities, and new funds to revitalise market towns.
Work is under way across Government to make regulation less burdensome for British farmers. I agree that the Government have a duty to bear down on unnecessary red tape in farming, just as they do with other businesses. We have already pledged that there will be no gold-plating or early implementation of European regulations. The Opposition motion claims that British agriculture is disadvantaged by over-regulation. In fact, Lord Haskins' report for the better regulation taskforce found no evidence that regulation creates a competitive disadvantage for British farmers. The taskforce made a wide range of constructive recommendations, and we will soon publish a positive response to the report.
The Government have accepted 98 of the 107 recommendations of the first three industry-led red tape working groups. Further reviews of farm inputs and veterinary medicines are under way. We continue to press ahead with animal disease reduction strategies. We are strengthening our strategy for tackling the spread of bovine TB, and increasing resources for TB testing. We have increased the compensation payments from 75 to 100 per cent. for cattle slaughtered as TB suspects. We are committed to completing the Krebs-Bourne trial. All 10 matched triplets are now in place and we hope for results by 2004, or possibly earlier.
The 2000 spending review provides £115 million for the national plan to get as close as we can to eliminating scrapie from the national sheep flock. We are considering the BSE inquiry report and its 167 wide-ranging recommendations. I hope to present the Government's substantive interim response to the House very soon, and business managers have provisionally scheduled the debate for 15 February.
A lot can be done to help British farmers by improving the way in which the food chain operates. That was the finding of the high level food chain working group that brought together leading figures from the farming, food processing, manufacturing, distribution and retail sectors.

At the heart of the matter is the fact that every part of the food chain has a vested interest in the long-term success of every other part. The working group found the need for more communication and co-operation throughout the food chain, from farm to fork.
The group's work is being put to practical use in the new taskforce that has been brought together to examine the workings of the dairy supply chain. No matter how hard pressed dairy producers are, what the Government can do to help is limited. The real answer to the producer problems in the sector is to be found in the marketplace and in the supply chain.

Sir Robert Smith: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a moment.
I warmly welcome the National Farmers Union's new British farm standard tractor mark, which allows shoppers clearly to identify foods produced to British farm assurance standards.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brown: Of course, and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith).

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is it true that there are instances of France or other countries sending produce to this country marked with a red tractor, carrying wording that implies that the produce reaches the same standard without making it clear that it is not British? People want to buy British food, but we need an efficient system that enables them to identify it.

Mr. Brown: My understanding of the position is that the answer to my hon. Friend's question must be no. Although it would be possible for any supplier to this country to join the quality assurance mark scheme, it would not be proper for a non-member to use that mark and claim the quality assurance. The red tractor is a British quality assurance mark, not a point of origin mark. If people want to make a point of origin claim, it is perfectly lawful to do so. Suppliers from Germany, France, the United Kingdom and different parts of the United Kingdom can make a point of origin claim provided that it is truthful. They must comply with the trading standards legislation. Enforcement is a matter for the trading standards authorities, just as the lead agency on labelling is now the Food Standards Agency.

Mr. Christopher Gill: rose—

Mr. Brown: I had promised to give way to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but with the courtesy that is so common among Liberal Democrats, he allows me to take this intervention.

Mr. Gill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he really think that it would be wrong to insist on mandatory country of origin labelling? Such labelling would allow the question asked by the hon. Member for


Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to be answered truthfully, and consumers could see exactly which country produce came from.

Mr. Brown: I believe that consumers have a right to know the origin of product as well a right to a factual description of product. Indeed, on the beef labelling scheme, European Union law is moving in that direction. I shall say more about that, but first I give way to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for giving way. He talks about the medium term, and mentioned marketplaces a while back. For farmers in countries outside the eurozone, what replacement for agrimonetary compensation does he think will develop to deal with the marketplace in the European Union?

Mr. Brown: The development of the agrimonetary regime and the enlargement of the EU are both big questions, but the hon. Gentleman should focus on the fact that as more and more member states join a single currency—indeed, it is a condition of membership for the candidate countries that they will come into the single currency arrangements—the case for agrimonetary compensation, which is, after all, designed to compensate for currency movements, rather recedes. I would not have thought that the agrimonetary regime was among the many concerns that the candidate countries have, but I stand to be corrected.

Sir Robert Smith: The United Kingdom is outside the eurozone, and British farmers are concerned about what will happen to them in future as a result of currency fluctuations in the single market.

Mr. Brown: The point that I am trying to make to the hon. Gentleman is that we are not the only country concerned about that, but we are increasingly becoming the only country for which it is a substantial issue of interest. I cannot stand up today and announce a successor regime.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the payments are made in tranches over three-year periods— half the total money in the first year, a third in the second year, and a sixth in the third year. When the regime comes to an end, will there be successor arrangements? I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there will. I am pointing the hon. Gentleman to substantial factors in the international arrangements for the European Union that rather suggest the opposite.
I do not want to make a definitive statement now, as I am not in a position to do so. However, as I have said before, it would be wrong for British agriculture constantly to look to the supply side of the common agricultural policy, including the agrimonetary arrangements, for its future. The direction, I think, is very different.
We have clamped down on misleading country of origin labelling. It is illegal now to sell imported food as British just because it has been repacked or processed in the UK. As I said in reply to the intervention from my

hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), trading standards officers have the power to undertake prosecutions.
Following the report of the Competition Commission, the Office of Fair Trading is working on a statutory code of practice for the major retailers, governing their relationships with suppliers. That will complement the voluntary code developed by the Institute of Grocery Distribution. I strongly encourage the industry to take that up. In part, that answers the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who has moved to the Front Bench. It is good to see him there.

Mr. James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he clarify his remark that it is now illegal to describe as British in origin a product that underwent only its last process in Britain. Which legislation has made that illegal? I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had only issued guidance to trading standards officers. Guidelines do not have the force of law.

Mr. Brown: Guidelines are exactly that: they guide trading standards officers in their enforcement activities. Of course, the law is ultimately interpreted by the courts, not by politicians. Every experienced parliamentarian is familiar with that.
I did everything that I could with the regime, before it transferred, with the Food Standards Agency, to the Department of Health. If Conservative Members had really cared they had 18 years to tighten up the regime.
I shall spell out the policies that we are putting in place to help farming through very difficult times. We are providing direct financial support, practical help to individual farm businesses and a long-term vision for the future.
The House will search in vain to find such measures in the Opposition's motion. Let us consider what the Opposition propose. They call for "honesty in food-labelling". That implies that we do not have that at present, and that for the 18 years they were in government, we did. As I understand it, they mean compulsory country of origin labelling of food. That is an occupied field in the European Union.
The Opposition know full well that by acting unilaterally on food labelling, we would be in breach of the rules of the European single market. We are lobbying the Commission for improvements in Community food labelling laws. In particular, we strongly support proposals for country of origin labelling of beef throughout the single market as a first step in that direction. In the meantime, however, as I said a moment ago, there is nothing to stop British producers labelling their produce as British. The NFU's tractor mark clearly identifies a wide range of high-quality foods produced to British farm assurance standards, and, as I have said, it is illegal to suggest that food is British if it is not.
The Opposition motion calls for a restriction in the flow of food imports. Although food standards are now a matter for the Food Standards Agency, in which health Ministers lead, I assure the House that the Government will not hesitate to ban imports that present a risk to human or animal health; but as most Opposition Members know, banning imports for other reasons is illegal under


European law. Those who do not know that are welcome to consult the Government's legal advice, which I placed in the House of Commons Library more than a year ago.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I am being very generous—I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman is characteristically generous.
In my earlier intervention, I said that I was not calling for a trade war. I was saying that action should be taken when there was evidence from the European Commission that the French Government had not taken sufficient steps to prevent the spread of BSE. No one is asking the Secretary of State to start a trade war; we merely ask him to accept that there is overwhelming evidence—from the European Commission itself—that the import of French beef is not safe. If the right hon. Gentleman will not act even when it is a question of public safety, why on earth does he think that anyone should take him seriously when he dismisses the evidence and accuses us of starting a trade war?

Mr. Brown: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take more interest in current affairs. He will have noted that the House has passed legislation setting up the Food Standards Agency, that the responsibilities that he urges me to carry out are now matters for the Secretary of State for Health, and that Government collectively are now professionally advised by the agency—
The hon. Gentleman would like to ban French imports for chauvinist and protectionist reasons, and to present the outcome as though it were a food safety measure. If there were a food safety reason, we would be told by Sir John Krebs, the head of the agency, and the Secretary of State for Health would produce legislation to protect the public. What the hon. Gentleman cannot do is wish into existence a food safety reason to disguise what are, in fact, anti-European and ideological reasons. That is not a rational way to proceed.

Mr. Yeo: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House unwittingly. He tried to suggest that the Conservative party was advocating an illegal action in terms of a ban on imports on grounds other than health. He will be aware, however, that under the treaties imports can be prohibited or restricted on grounds of public morality. On 22 June last year, he gave me the following written answer;
'Public morality' is not susceptible to an absolute definition: it inevitably involves subjective judgment … The European Court of Justice has held that in principle it is for each member state to determine in accordance with its own scale of values the requirements of public morality in its territory."—[Official Report, 22 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 300–01W.]

Mr. Brown: Because I quite like the hon. Gentleman—although it does not always show—I shall rescue him from the folly towards which he is slowly drifting, in terms of protectionist sentiments.
The fact is that this law has been much invoked and much tested by the courts. I am thinking of, for instance, a case with which I suspect some former Conservative Ministers sitting behind the hon. Gentleman will be very

familiar—the one relating to veal calves; but Conservative Governments have got themselves into trouble before by going down the protectionist route. I remember Lord Walker, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, banning the importing of turkeys from France—

Mr. Yeo: And very popular it was too.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman gives the game away. It may well have been popular—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ( Mr. Elliot Morley): Not least with turkeys.

Mr. Brown: Indeed, but it was also found to be illegal, and the court case cost the British taxpayer a substantial sum.
Let me also remind the House of the Factortame dispute, which had similar protectionist origins. If Conservative Members find no other argument persuasive, however, let me cite self-interest. As a nation, we export some £10 billion worth of food and drink per year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are involved in those important British industries. More than half of that is exported to the European Union. What is the sense in putting all that in jeopardy? The case for protectionism is always very specific. The case for free trade is general, but it is overwhelming.
There was a time when Conservative Members stood for trade, markets and freedom to buy and sell things without restraint—but not now. The response from the hon. Member for South Suffolk is very English and very protectionist. If things carry on as they are, he will be promising to reintroduce the Navigation Acts and there will be a fight in the Conservative party over the corn laws. That is the direction in which Conservative Members are going—back to the future with a vengeance.
I do not ask Conservative Members to take my advice; perhaps they can take the advice of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon ( Mr. Curry). He told the House that he could not
imagine a single action more calculated to extinguish the last flicker of life in hill farming in north Yorkshire than encouraging a trade war that puts at risk 136 million worth of live lamb exports to France".—[Official Report, 28 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 1146.]
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for South Suffolk gave the House no indication of how much of the £16 billion Tory cuts guarantee would fall on farming.

Mr. Yeo: I had a feeling that the Minister would try to get on to this point. I make it absolutely clear that not a single penny will be found from the agriculture budget to fund the substantial and popular Tory tax cuts.

Mr. Brown: I knew that I was right to say that I actually quite like the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for that. Would he like to intervene again and explain where the money is coming from? More fair-minded than that one cannot get. Then perhaps he could help me on this: which Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can explain to me where the cuts would fall?

Mr. Yeo: The shadow Chancellor will explain that, because that is his job. The Minister has been notable in


refusing to answer questions on the pesticide tax and the climate change levy because they are Treasury matters. I tell him fair and square that we will not cut the agriculture budget by a single penny to fund our tax cuts. We will, if we have to chance to do so before 30 April, claim the agrimonetary compensation in full. The Minister, however, refuses to say anything about that.

Mr. Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman is only shadowing a ministerial job, but I do not think that he will get very far just by blaming the shadow Chancellor. What if the shadow Chancellor were ever to become the real Chancellor? Still, I am grateful.
The hon. Gentleman says that he is planning to keep to our spending plans. I thank him for that; no cuts in agriculture spending; our spending plans are the right ones; Conservative Members would do what we do—but the electorate may be tempted just to let us get on and do it. If he stuck to our plans, how would he finance the new raft of policies set out in "Fair Deal for Farming", the Conservative party's policy document? If it is his intention—this is implicit in his remark—to finance it by taking money from policies that we are spending money on and spending that on other policies that he wants, will he say which policies those will be—or will there be more money for agriculture? The hon. Gentleman has no response; farmers will be interested in that.

Paice: This is an Opposition debate.

Mr. Brown: Yes. However, the hon. Member for South Suffolk was speaking confidently of winning the general election. Although I am not sure that much of the public think that that is a real possibility, if he does think that, surely he should say what he will spend money on.

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me.

Mr. Gill: The Minister is obviously running out of material. May I ask him a question that relates to tax? Who will pay for the continental purchase for slaughter and destruction scheme? Will it be the taxpayers of the countries in which the cattle are slaughtered or the European taxpayer—which of course would include the British taxpayer? Would that not be in stark contrast to what the British taxpayer had to do on our own BSE initiatives?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The purchase-for-destruction scheme puts enormous pressure on the budget for the common agricultural policy, which has a ceiling. He is also right about Ministers having to discuss a range of ways in which to move forward. That includes national contributions, which I would not rule out. Clearly, much depends on how much pressure is put on the scheme. If that pressure is as substantial as some of the estimates now being discussed in the public domain suggest, the implication is that the costs will go well beyond the budget ceiling for the regime that has to deal with it. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is a very big question indeed.
We have had the political knockabout, and I regret that there has been no real response from Opposition Front-Bench Members.

Mr. Yeo: The Minister has taken a long time.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman says that I have taken a long time, but in debates such as this there is a straight choice to be made when it comes to interventions. I am always generous in that regard, as I know that hon. Members like to intervene on the Minister, but the quid pro quo is that interventions take time out of the debate. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways: he cannot complain about the time and then also want to intervene.
I accept that there are difficulties facing agriculture, and that it is right to debate the way forward. I have made it clear that we are listening. I have set out what we have worked hard to provide in the short term, and I have addressed the longer-term considerations. We have an action plan, and we are delivering on that vision.
I call upon the House to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, and to reject the motion.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am extremely grateful to be called to contribute to the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on the way in which he introduced it.
I am glad that the Minister, at the end of his speech, finally found it in himself to agree that agriculture was in crisis. A survey compiled by a firm of accountants based in Norwich and published in the Eastern Daily Press last September showed that farm incomes in Norfolk have fallen by 50 per cent. over the past four years. That is before losses due to fuel tax and swine fever are taken into account.
The Government's own figures, reproduced by the National Farmers Union, show that total income from farming fell by 29 per cent. in real terms in the year 2000, compared with 1999. In other words, in one year there has been a fall of more than 70 per cent., and farm incomes are at their lowest for three generations. Bank borrowings now amount to some £10 billion, and investment levels are at their lowest since 1970.
In England and Wales, more people have left the land over the past two years than in living memory. It behoves the Minister to admit that he is presiding over a crisis. He has repeated today that he is sympathetic and concerned. That, of course, is what we get from Ministers.
The Minister has said—correctly—that some funds are being invested in agriculture and in rural areas. It is true that some of the schemes are useful and that some can help. However, I wonder whether the Minister has any idea of the time, effort and frustration involved in applying for the multiplicity of schemes that he is putting in place, and on which he is relying to be able to say that he is responding to the crisis. Does he realise that the difficulty involved in applying for the aid that he says he is spreading about, and the amount of regulation that he is loading on the industry, are combining to cause the industry to sink slowly from view?
I wrote to the Minister nearly a month ago about the plight of my constituent, Mr. James Nelstrop of Roudham. I have not, of course received a reply—I do not expect one from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food any more so the matter is absolutely academic.
Last May, Mr. Nelstrop submitted an application under the stewardship scheme. He took considerable trouble preparing the application, and engaged in full discussion with MAFF and regional officials. He was given to understand that the work was in order. However, at the last minute MAFF told him that he was ineligible, as his farm was eight miles from an airfield.
In fact, Mr. Nelstrop had not moved his farm, and the airfield was where it had been for 50 years. It was merely that after he had spent nearly £10,000 to do the work required to prepare the application, his farm's location became evident to the Ministry.
Mr. Nelstrop has written to me about the other efforts that he has made. He says that immediately post-Budget, in March, he applied to the regional development office for details of the redundant farm buildings scheme—one of the schemes mentioned by the Minister. Mr. Nelstrop says that after making several telephone calls, he received the forms in late July. Having compiled a draft application, he was informed that the money available had to be spent by the end of January 2001 but that the application could not be considered until formal planning permission had been received. The earliest planning decision had to be taken by 21 September last year, the earliest scheme application decision by 21 October last year. Clearly it was impossible for this farmer to carry out the work in the three months of the worst weather period, including Christmas and the new year, because it would take six months to do. The scheme was abandoned, at an additional cost to his business of £500.
Mr. Nelstrop then decided to use a new Government scheme to help fund restoration and conversion of redundant buildings. He had three meetings with the Forest Heath development officer and was advised that he should consider conversion to small offices. Following discussions with MAFF in Cambridge, he decided to proceed. He applied to the Forest Heath district council for change of use and has now been told that it is Suffolk county council's policy to oppose rural development on the basis that it is not sustainable, owing to lack of public transport.
What I have recounted is the cumulative experience of one farmer who is trying to make a living and trying to use the schemes that the Minister is congratulating himself on putting in place. Mr. Nelstrop adds:
Small businesses do not have the resources to deal with this legislation, filling in the forms, reading, remembering and implementing all the rules (even if you know where to look for the ones that may apply to your business). Add to this the time, costs and risks in applying for Government assistance programs, less and less of our time is available for the core business. Eventually this will lead to the demise of small businesses and the basis of our economy/society as we have come to know it.

Mr. Hayes: Is it not also the case that those most vulnerable and hard hit—such as tenant armers—those in very isolated areas, and smaller farmers find it harder to take advantage of these schemes? Diversification, in particular, does not mean a lot to someone who farms poor land, lives in an isolated community or is a tenant farmer.

Mrs. Shephard: That is one of the points that I want to get home to the Minister this afternoon. I want him to understand that before he congratulates himself on these schemes, he should do an audit on the amount of

paperwork, frustration and abortive effort that he and his schemes mean for the agriculture industry. He seems to believe that they are the solution to the problems in the industry, but he needs first to understand and remove the reefs and hurdles he has put in place because, believe me, they are making everything much worse.
Of course, along with the Minister and most people in the Chamber, I support greater diversity in British agriculture and the production of non-food crops. However, I question the kind of thinking that means that my constituents can tell me that there are plenty of funds available for camomile co-operatives, for example, while at the same time I hear of redundancies at the Wissington sugar factory.
It must also be evident to the Minister that there is a certain irony in the Government's trumpeting of special funds to help the economy of Great Yarmouth, while they also pursue policies that could result in the closure of the Cantley sugar factory a few miles from Yarmouth, and which will also deal a hammer blow to trade in the Great Yarmouth docks. There again, perhaps not—after all, a Minister who, in the week in which he and his colleagues vote to ban hunting, can announce the appointment of a Minister for the horse may not possess a highly developed sense of irony.
The Government say that they sympathise with the current crisis in agriculture, but they have provided little effective help. Although there have been a lot of words and efforts, they have sometimes made things worse. The technical aspects of the outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia were dealt with very professionally by MAFF officials, and I took the trouble to write to the Minister to tell him so. However, my constituents continue to be nerve-racked, not only because many of them have lost thousands of pounds—some of them hundreds of thousands of pounds—but because, six months on from the original outbreak, they still face uncertainty about the eventual compensation.
On sugar beet, do the Government support the everything but arms initiative, which would threaten 23,000 jobs in the British economy, or do they support the on-going EU review of the sugar regime? As the Minister has said, they are not compatible either they must be made compatible, or the Minister must say which side he is on. We have not heard much from any Minister on that matter.

Mr. Nick Brown: My policy is not very different from the one that the right hon. Lady pursued when she was a Minister.

Mrs. Shephard: The policy that I pursued, which was for an on-going review of the sugar regime, was not threatened by the everything but arms initiative, supported by other branches of the Government of which I was a member. That is the right hon. Gentleman's position.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not understand why she pursued that policy as a Minister; but the truth is that, yes, the regime was threatened by market access, regardless of whether that came under a regime specifically tailored to the poorest countries in the world, or whether it came more generally. That is


precisely the reason why she used to argue that the existing sugar regime was not sustainable, and why I argue that now.

Mrs. Shephard: The Minister should use a great deal more force in that case, and perhaps a little more knowledge. Ten days ago the European Commission reported on its website that it had decided to adopt a new timetable for duty and tariffs on imports of cane sugar to start from 2006. I think I am right to say that the original plan for the EBA proposals was that they should begin on 1 January 2001. That news was reported widely in the farming press and welcomed, but Ministers said nothing, so we could be forgiven for thinking that they either had not noticed or did not know.
Last week, therefore, I tabled questions to the Minister and to the Minister for Trade to ask for clarification. After four days, they gave holding replies, so I assume that they did not know that the Commission had changed its mind. If they did know, why did they give holding replies? Why did they refer me to the position before Christmas in their definitive answers?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Lady could always turn up during oral questions to ask about those matters.

Mrs. Shephard: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman gave any indication of that position during oral questions this morning. Perhaps the Minister of State will give an answer in winding-up the debate. Although she usually answers by saying that she will place a letter in the Library, I shall ask her the questions that she should answer in summing up today. Has the Commission changed its policy? Is the starting date now 2006? Was the farming press right to welcome the change? Did she and her colleagues know about it? If so, why was I not given the correct answer to my question?
The simple conclusion, even from this exchange, is that Ministers have so little understanding of the real issues affecting agriculture, and so little appreciation that agriculture is the cornerstone of the rural economy, that they think the schemes and plans that they put about are helping, whereas they are in fact stifling with regulations the industry's ability to produce the crops that the market needs. It is time for a change in rural Britain, and we will have one.

Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in this debate. I begin by responding to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). It is somewhat cheap to concentrate only on what is apparently a national crisis, although I shall make some points about its British dimension. After my recent visit to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with the Select Committee on Agriculture, it is evident to me that every agricultural system in the developed world is undergoing problems at present.
In the Irish Republic, a huge changeover from full-time to part-time farming is under way, with all the repercussions that one might imagine. We cannot and must not identify the crisis as purely a British problem—although there are problems for which not only the Labour

Government but the previous Conservative Government have responsibility. There is a British dimension; we have additional difficulties that are only too well known—BSE, bovine tuberculosis and the recent floods all add to a legacy of problems that the Government have to do their best to sort out.
I am glad that the problems of the CAP have been mentioned. My political perspective means that I have never been a great fan of the CAP—let alone many aspects of the EU—but at least we are moving in the right direction. The problem is that there have been wild fluctuations in policy: from our own deficiency payment system, to price support systems and sectoral support payments, right up to the type of initiatives that many of us want for agriculture, not only in this country but throughout the western world—support for countryside management and rural development regulations that would ensure that agriculture was genuinely environment-friendly.

Mr. Hayes: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an assiduous interest in these matters. Agenda 2000 was heralded as the great opportunity to reform the CAP exactly as he describes, yet once it was implemented, it was widely regarded as a damp squib. Surely the changes that he describes may take a generation or more—by which time, there will be precious few farmers left in Britain.

Mr. Drew: I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's argument. Agenda 2000 was a missed opportunity—less in this country than for other EU Governments. They must rue the day they did not make radical and more dramatic changes. We must continue to push them to ensure that they do so in the future.
At present, the most important matter is how to provide support to those farmers who so desperately need it. In the initial exchanges between Front-Bench speakers, we were reminded that for every pound raised in compensatory payments, 69p has to come from our Treasury. Looking back, one sees that it was no great success—to save our budget then could cost us much more money in future. However, we know that and we must build it into our calculations.
None of that would be necessary if we did not have to engage in all the fiddles and fudges of the exchange rate. I blame the CAP in particular; that was bound to lead to disaster. No country can rely indefinitely on a depreciating currency to finance its farmers. The currency began to appreciate under the previous Conservative Government and that continued under Labour, but unfortunately there are repercussions, on top of many other problems.
I hope that we shall debate BSE in a fortnight, so I shall not discuss it at length now. However, we must never underestimate the extent of the problems caused by BSE. They do not affect only farmers in the livestock sector; there is an integrity in agriculture—all the sectors work together. Phillips exposed the problems caused by BSE—not only health problems but income difficulties that farmers continue to face. We must keep revisiting them.
Although I have some comments on regulation, we must get it into our head that, after all the problems and all that we have learned, merely to remove regulation is not the way to rebuild confidence in our food chain. It


would do just the opposite. Although it is schadenfreude to talk about what other countries are going through—we heard the earlier exchanges about those horrible French and those horrible Germans—at least we can give them a few lessons. However, we must never let the idea that we welcome their plight enter our consciousness. British beef farmers will also suffer because there will again be a lack of confidence in beef, and in other meat.
We must consider regulation and take up the arguments of Lord Haskins and the work of the three working parties that were set up by the Government to examine red tape. We must understand that it is possible to gold-plate some sectors, but we can do that only if we take a measured approach and are careful how we reduce the number of regulations. We must also ensure that regulations are enforced in the most appropriate manner.
It concerns me when people talk about investigation as though it can automatically be carried out by people who have the time to do it. However, we put enormous pressure on trading standards officers, environmental health officers and the Meat Hygiene Service. We must support them in whatever way we can, and that often means finding more resources, and not fewer, as those who advocate less regulation sometimes argue.
I know that other Members wish to speak, so it would be wrong if I spoke for my whole 10 minutes. However, it is important to develop a partnership so that those involved with the different elements of the food chain can understand and work more effectively with each other. This debate comes at an important time for my constituency, because Dairy Crest has announced a rationalisation of the dairy processing sector. I declare an interest: my dairy was the biggest winner. Severnside has become the so-called super-dairy, but I do not claim that my lobbying prowess had anything to do with that. I am sad for the dairies that lost out.
However, it has long been argued that there is a need for rationalisation in the sector, and we must accept that. Farmers have always told me that although the price that they receive for milk is not high enough, they want to be in a sector that is more efficient. Such developments are taking place in the processing sector, and it would be nice to see them happening in retailing, so that retailers pay the going price, even though most of us believe that it is too low. If consumers pay a fair price, that will help to keep dairy and other farmers in production.
I have been saddened by the shake-out in the processing industry, so we need to examine how we can bring people together. For the past week or so, farmers from Farmers for Action have been demonstrating outside the Severnside plant, and I gather that there will be a big demonstration tonight. Although I understand their frustration, that is not the way to build bridges.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I do not know the particular circumstances of what the hon. Gentleman described as his dairy. However, I know that fanners throughout the country are angry. I declare an interest in that I come from a farming family. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about shake-outs, but does he not realise that farmers are angry because of the inaction and incompetence of the Government whom he supports?

Mr. Drew: I wish I had not taken that intervention because it is so far from the truth as to be unreal.
If we are to have an effective national food chain in this country, the different sectors must come together. There is no more obvious example than the dairy industry, where there has been a poisonous atmosphere in the recent past. That has to be overcome, but the situation is not helped by farmers demonstrating, trying to shut down a dairy and intimidating people who, in the main, are paid much less than many of them, even in these difficult circumstances. I condemn that, as I hope the Opposition will. It is important that we find a way forward, and that will not be achieved by demonstrations and intimidation.
We understand the way in which the Government's policy is proceeding. There are matters on which I have something in common with the Opposition. There is a case for considering early retirement. I understand the arguments about dead weight and how it will be financed, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister considered that carefully. If we are to help those who are, unfortunately, to leave the industry, whether temporarily or permanently, or to work part-time, we must give them the means to make that move successfully.
There is a need for retraining, and I am pleased to hear about the Small Business Service and rural development regulations. We have to encourage more diversification. The environmental side of farming must be paid for by the Government, and the tourists who want to visit our wonderful countryside should contribute to its management.
Much is being done to help agriculture, and the industry has not been and will not be isolated, but is being viewed as part of the wider rural economy. That agenda has a cost. I am pleased that the Opposition have now agreed to ring-fence support for agriculture, along with health, education, defence and law and order. If they were given the opportunity, I should like to see them manage the Budget, given that they are also talking about tax cuts.

Mr. Huw Edwards: My hon. Friend made an interesting point confirming that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that the Opposition would ring-fence the agriculture budget. Has he heard any confirmation of that from the shadow Chancellor?

Mr. Drew: No, but I am sure that in the days to come many Labour Members will be quizzing the hon. Member for South Suffolk about the spending commitment that he will have to meet.
There is much for the Government to be proud of, despite the current crisis. However, it was said earlier that farmers must not be given false hope. We have to provide them with a realistic way forward, and that will involve structural changes. The argument concerns how we fund those changes and ensure that agriculture can survive not only these immediate problems but long into the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the next Member to speak, I say to the House that although there is not a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate, many Members are seeking to catch my eye, and it would be helpful if contributions were as brief as possible.

Mr. David Heath: I am pleased that we have another opportunity to discuss agriculture, and I congratulate the official Opposition on providing that opportunity.
There is no doubt that we are still in the depths of a major crisis. Anyone who doubts that has only to look at the recently released estimates of farm income. Whatever slight improvement there may have been in the pig and poultry sectors, and possibly even in hill farming, one has only to look at the base from which they are improving to realise that they are still in the depths of a recession.
In other sectors, the problems are still getting worse. The net farm income in the dairy sector is only 20 per cent., in real terms, of what it was a decade ago. In cereals, the figure is only 25 per cent. Even more telling are the figures for cash income, which relate to farmers who work their own farm and do not pay a wage bill. Dairy farmers have experienced a 15 per cent. drop in their cash income since last year, and cereal farmers have suffered a 25 per cent. drop.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the worst changes took place pre-BSE? The BSE disaster was not the cause of the present problem, although it has obviously aggravated the situation. Farm incomes have fallen by two thirds from 1995 onwards, pre-BSE.

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a long-term decline in farming. It is almost impossible now to gain a living wage by working a small or medium-sized farm, without dipping into capital. The average income per farmer is £8,500, which is the lowest ever in real terms since records began. If we consider the comparators, only Sweden—I suspect that the figures for Sweden are not entirely accurate—and Portugal have lower average farm incomes than those in the United Kingdom. That is bad for the owner farmer, but at least he has capital employed in his farm. It is even worse for the tenant farmer, who does not have the satisfaction of knowing that he has assets on which he can call. We still wait for a retirement scheme that would allow many such farmers, especially those in late middle age, to retire with dignity.
Institutional landlords could play a part in ensuring that agricultural rents are a genuine reflection of agricultural profitability. I am not convinced that some institutional landlords, even those with a clear social intent such as the Church of England, have got their minds round what is required. It is not only agriculture directly that is involved—many other industries depend upon it.
The Government's responses, certainly during the period in office of the current Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have been largely well intentioned. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the assiduity with which he has listened to what many of us have had to say in the Chamber, as well as, more importantly, to what many outside the House who are directly involved in agriculture have had to say.
Good intentions are not enough. Often schemes have been announced that have taken time to come to fruition. Often they have not delivered what was claimed for them. Some of the schemes to which the Minister referred are not in place and are not delivering. There is

incompleteness about the Government's response. The good intentions of the Ministry are not necessarily matched by other areas of government.
We do not have joined-up government. We do not always have the co-operation of the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the other Departments that play a part. That is why we still have rather malign chuntering about the pesticides tax, which would be disastrous for cereal farmers were it to be introduced and implemented now. We still have the DTI taking what I think is a perverse view of Milk Marque. We still have the Treasury causing obstructions to carry-forwards, which are needed if the Minister is to do the job that he wants to do.

Mr. Livsey: My hon. Friend has referred to the Department of Trade and Industry, which today announced, sadly, the loss of 6,000 jobs in the steel industry. Is he aware that in Wales, between 1998 and 2000, 6,000 farmers left the land?

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His intervention underlines the depth and scale of the problem that we face. Individual farmers do not show up in the statistics in the same way as a major plant closure. However, they are no less important because of that, and we should pay the same attention to them.
There is still uncertainty about the Government's intentions. There was a debate in serial fashion this afternoon on the future of agrimonetary compensation. I hope that the Minister will make an early announcement that he does intend to draw down on that. There may be a temptation to wait until three or four days before an election to make the point. I hope that he will not do that, and that there will be an earlier announcement.
I also hope that the Minister will give serious consideration—it is a point that I have raised repeatedly in debates on agriculture—to what will succeed the agrimonetary compensation mechanism. It is not good enough merely to hope that something will turn up. That is not doing our best for farmers. We are currently outside the eurozone. We are the only country that will be in such a position because of the weakness of the Swedish kronor and the fact that the Danish kroner is pegged to the euro. Our position is therefore unique, and we must persuade other EU countries that we need a mechanism to cope with it.
I should like to deal briefly with agricultural sectors. The dairy sector is close to my own heart, and is important in my Somerset constituency. I shall re-examine the scale of the milk problem. Output value is down by £273 million—10 per cent. of its value. That is the real problem: its beginning and end are the price that the farmer can get for the milk that he sells. Until we get that right, any amount of marketing and promotion will not cure the problem.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Heath: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, that will take time from other Members. However, I shall happily do so.

Mr. Hayes: I shall be brief.
Is that issue not indicative of a wider problem—the distortion of the food chain? The relationship between producer, retailer and consumer is distorted. Supermarkets play an important part because they carry a lot of responsibility for that distortion. That is the heart of the problem, which has not been addressed by the Government.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right: that is precisely the point that I was about to make. However, the problem is not a new invention by the Government. The supermarkets were given much too free a rein under the previous Government, which they took, as any commercial business would. However, there is a gross distortion in the market. As the Minister knows, I was bitterly disappointed at the outcome of the Competition Commission report on supermarkets. It did not ask the right questions, so it came up with the wrong answers.
We need to re-examine seriously the dairy supply chain. On 16 November, in answer to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, the Minister spoke about the need to establish a group to consider the current problems. The Minister also gave a heavy hint that a report would be commissioned to study in depth the milk supply chain. That cannot come soon enough, as it would enable us to take the required remedial action.
The state of the beef market in Europe is extremely serious, not just for beef producers in Europe but for beef producers in this country. We underestimate that at our peril. I do not believe that even the European Commission, in its recent assessment of the situation, has estimated properly the difficulties that we may be about to experience. It assessed the reduction in domestic markets, but they will reduce much more than is currently estimated.
There is undue optimism about the ability of European Union countries, including the United Kingdom, to find export markets outside the EU. Exactly the same barriers that Britain experienced in the past will be put up against all EU beef. That will have a hugely distorting and possibly catastrophic effect on the beef regime under EU rules. I shall give the Minister a warning. He will be tempted to try to achieve consensus on public health, veterinary health and public safety in the Council of Ministers. However, he must not be tempted to allow our farmers and our taxpayers to pay twice for that problem, as could happen.
I also hope that the Minister will not accept measures to restore confidence that are entirely unjustified in this country. One matter currently on the table is the fishmeal ban. The Minister will know that there is not a problem here with possible cross-contamination between fishmeal and meat and bonemeal. A fishmeal ban would have a disastrous effect. I have a letter from Countrywide Farmers, based in Melksham near my constituency, which estimates that a ban
would cost the feed industry £20 million, plus an annual £10 million
because of transport costs. Those are substantial additional costs for our farmers and food producers.
Hon. Members have mentioned regulation, which is still an important issue for many of our farmers. I hear what is said about our pledge not to introduce gold-plating, but I take seriously the point made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) about the

introduction of new regulations. Over-regulation stifles our farming industry, but we still do it. The 26 January edition of Farmers Weekly contains a report on the annual Lloyds TSB Scotland agricultural survey. It tells us of the estimate that farmers
are spending the equivalent of more than five working weeks a year filling in government-generated forms.
That still happens after the so-called war on red tape. We must deal with the matter. We need to introduce rights of appeal, simplify appeal mechanisms and establish an agricultural ombudsman who can challenge the decisions of MAFF inspectors. We also need to consider the effects of the new meat inspection regime.
We must also consider some of the simpler issues. I have received a letter from Mr. Paul Cary of Dangerfield farm in Buckland Dinham. Mr Cary, who is one of my constituents, speaks about the red tape associated with the slaughter premium scheme. I shall not take up time by dealing with that issue now, but I believe that it needs to be addressed and I shall write to the Minister about it.
I should like to mention the environmental schemes with which the Government have rightly pressed ahead. Countryside stewardship schemes and protection for environmentally sensitive areas should be promoted. Such schemes are in many ways the future of the common agricultural policy, and I hope that we will provide more support for those who maintain our countryside through them. However, I have serious concerns about the way in which they often operate. They must be redesigned and their scope should be increased. They need funding that is guaranteed year on year. If people enter such schemes, they must know that some bright spark in MAFF will not put a red line through the initial proposals at some later stage. The schemes must also reflect the realities of life. It is no good introducing a scheme that suddenly pays less, perhaps because the average farm income has fallen and the original investment decision was based on an assumption of income. We need to ensure that the arrangements are brought into line in order to guarantee farmers a future. We must also ensure that all such schemes have the correct design and focus.
Again, I do not want to take up too much time, but I should like briefly to refer the Minister to a study by the Environment Agency. I have enormous respect for much of the agency's work, but I am concerned about its impact statement on agriculture and the environment. If he turns to the pages on the environmental external costs of agriculture, he will see statements that, in my opinion, cannot be substantiated and do not reflect the true costs of agriculture. There is a problem with such information: if the agriculture industry can see that it is not real and that it does not reflect genuine circumstances, people will turn away in droves and we will not achieve our objectives. I invite the Minister to consider the statement and to reflect on whether its accounting is correct.
I considered the motion carefully and I believe that much of the analysis that it contains is correct. Indeed, I think that Opposition Members have identified in the motion many of the Government's failures. The problem is, however, that almost every single one of those failures could be applied to the Conservatives' term in office. It would better if they recognised that that was the case, as our memory is not as short as they would like it to be. We remember that farm incomes were in steep decline before 1997. We remember who presided over BSE and


its aftermath and who created a completely artificial beef war that poisoned our relations with the rest of Europe. We also remember who failed to start effective CAP reform, did not utilise agrimonetary compensation and produced a rebate formula at Fontainebleau that hobbled our negotiations year after year. Incidentally, we also remember which party introduced legislation to prevent local authorities from buying British when buying British was best.

Mr. Paice: Are the Liberal Democrats against the Fontainebleau agreement and the rebate that was gained for this country? The Prime Minister applauded that rebate only yesterday and claimed its maintenance as one of his achievements.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman comes late to the debate; I have made the point many times. The Fontainebleau rebate is a poor mechanism because of the problems it has created for our farmers and other primary producers. We should have had proper equivalence in the European Union between the amount that Britain spent and the amount that we received. We need an alternative mechanism, which is better designed than the Fontainebleau agreement and achieves the same objectives without crippling our farmers. We should be negotiating for that in Europe.
We have considered the motion and the Government's amendment, and we believe that successive Governments have failed farming and the rural areas in this country. Farmers and those who live in the country deserve better.

Mr. Huw Edwards: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who speaks with great authority, which I remember from his service on the Committee that considered the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. He presented a powerful reminder of the previous Government's legacy: BSE, long-term decline in incomes and Conservative Members' general anti-European instincts, which are relevant to a debate about farming.
There is no doubt that farm income has declined at least in the past five years. The weakness of the euro partly reflects the strength of the economy and the Government's good management of it. When the economy does well, agriculture tends to do badly. The reverse is also true: when agriculture does better, the economy tends to be weaker. I wish that the two cycles could coincide.
There has been a decline in the consumption of meat, and in world commodity prices, which seem to be improving now. The difficulties in Russia and Asia have also had an impact on the world economy. The Russian market is especially important for British farming. The effects of BSE and the loss of the export market have taken their toll. The Government regained the export market and removed the ban that was imposed by the European Union and other countries.
The Government have introduced regulations to improve consumer confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud ( Mr. Drew) made some powerful points about the need not to overstate the significance of red tape. Many of the regulations have been introduced to ensure consumer safety.
The Government have increased the regulatory framework for labelling. A farmer that I met recently drew my attention to the fact that when he went to his local supermarket, the new labelling rules had not been followed. I hope that the Government and the Food Standards Agency can consider that.
The Government's review of meat hygiene charges will be welcomed in the small abattoir in Raglan in the middle of my constituency. There is anxiety in my constituency about the delay in the payment of subsidies such as the suckler cow premium and the beef annual premium. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made the valid point that many farmers are penalised when they do not submit their applications in time, but that they suffer greatly from delays in their payments. There should be an appeals system. I know one farmer who lost £6,000 through making an inadvertent mistake. The Inland Revenue does not treat people like that, and neither should MAFF and the Rural Affairs Department of the Welsh Assembly.
Britain has higher welfare standards than other European countries and countries outside Europe. There is a thriving poultry industry in my constituency and it has suffered from the import of poultry that are fed on inferior foodstuffs, which would not be allowed in this country.
The farming community has also felt the effect of additional costs. I have sympathy for the farmers in my constituency who have been affected by rising fuel costs. Many small farmers are also small hauliers, and at a time of falling incomes, rising fuel costs were hitting them hard, especially the cost of red diesel. It is encouraging that the world oil price has gone down, and that has now reduced the cost of red diesel. The Government have also frozen fuel duties.
I am surprised by the Conservatives' motion. They have committed themselves to a saving in expenditure of at least £8 billion. They have said that they would protect the Government's commitments on education, the national health service and, apparently, policing. I wonder whether we have heard a genuine announcement tonight that they would protect the Government's future expenditure plans on agriculture. They have given no commitment that they would protect the industry budget. The biggest contribution that the Government give to industry is in agriculture, and it would be significant if the Conservatives would make a commitment on that. I suspect that they will not.

Mr. Yeo: If I did not make it clear before, when I intervened on the Minister, let me make it clear again that the Conservative party will honour the MAFF budget, as it has been set out, in full. The question that I asked earlier was whether the Labour Government would honour their own MAFF budget.

Mr. Edwards: I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will honour the budget that the Government have planned for the next few years. However, I have doubts as to whether a Conservative Government would do so, especially when we consider that, under the previous Conservative Government, not one penny piece of agrimonetary compensation was paid. The present Government have paid over £500,000. Surely the Conservatives would want to save in an area on which they never spent a penny when they were in government.
Under the Conservatives' proposals, what would go? What would be cut? Would it be support for sheep farmers, or the sheep annual premium? Would it be support for beef farmers, or the beef annual premium? Would it be the suckler cow premium, or agrimonetary compensation, as I have suggested?
Would agri-environmental schemes be cut under the Conservatives' proposals? To their credit, the Government have invested a considerable amount of extra money in such schemes. In Wales, we have the tir gofal scheme in the lowlands, and hill farmers have access to tir mynydd. Those are important contributions to farm income that would be under threat unless the commitments that we have, supposedly, heard tonight were fulfilled and confirmed by the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition. Would organic conversion support be maintained under the Conservatives? It has been substantially increased by the present Government.
A week ago, I attended the annual general meeting of the Monmouthshire National Farmers Union. I was pleased that the Deputy First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, Mr. Mike German, was there. The meeting was addressed by Ben Gill, the president of the NFU, and by Anthony Price, the union's chairman, who is retiring. I pay tribute to the work that Mr. Price has done, and wish every success to Glyn Williams, the new chairman.
Ben Gill had a powerful message about the difficulties facing the industry. There was no doubt about those difficulties, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard such messages a number of times. Mr. Gill also said that farmers need to fight back, and to work together. To their credit, Monmouthshire farmers have been working in co-operation. They were influential in establishing the farmers ferry and farmers fresh schemes. I have also visited the abattoir in Kenilworth, where a thriving meat export market is being developed because of the co-operative initiatives achieved by the farmers of Monmouthshire and elsewhere.
In Monmouthshire, the farmers make an enormous contribution to the environment and to producing safe food. We have had some good news stories there. Two days ago, I attended the launch of CCET, the new rural training initiative. One of the key bodies involved with the scheme will be Coleg Gwent. At the heart of Coleg Gwent, which is in my constituency, is the former Usk agricultural college. I would be the first to admit that the further education sector has been very slow to respond to the educational and training needs of the established farming community. It used to train young people coming into farming, but their numbers have declined in recent years. In the past six months, an important new initiative has been produced to support those farmers who are established in the business, those who want to retrain to develop IT skills, and farmers' wives who want to retrain. The college makes an important contribution.
The farming community also makes a valuable contribution—to maintaining the beautiful countryside of Monmouthshire and to providing high quality food. I appreciate the difficulties that it faces and I want to work with farmers to ensure a more secure future for farming in Monmouthshire and the rest of Wales.

Mr. David Prior: I must declare an interest. I was born and brought up on a farm and my family is still directly involved with farming.
Although the current recession is a disaster for British farmers and a particular disaster for small and medium-sized family farms and livestock farmers, it affects all farms, whatever their cropping or activity and whatever their size. Farm incomes have fallen by 90 per cent. in the past two years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) pointed out, bank borrowings have risen to more than £10 billion and 47,500 farmers and farm workers have left the industry over the past two years.
Those figures mask the suffering of thousands of farmers who have seen generations of effort, hard work and dedication turn to ashes. The National Farmers Union estimates that up to 40 per cent. of farmers receive or are entitled to the working families tax credit, so let us be in no doubt about the extent of the crisis. Many people—some on the Government Benches and some elsewhere—shrug their shoulders at that. They argue, "Why does it matter? What is so special about agriculture? Why cannot it go the same way as the textile industry or other commodity-based manufacturing industries that have had to close capacity and cut back?" Those are serious and important questions. They need an answer, which I shall attempt to give.
Most obviously, we need to feed ourselves—if not completely, then at least substantially. There might be a short-term glut of food and short-term price collapses, but who can say that that will always be the case? Natural disasters might cause massive crop failures. Who can predict with certainty the impact of climate change on the world's ability to feed itself? What are the chances of a man-made disaster? Who knows the full consequences, good or bad, of genetic modification? Will the third world, as it becomes richer, demand more food than the world can produce? There might be trade wars or more conventional war. Who knows? Surely there is still a strong argument—which, after all, has been accepted since the second world war—that we should produce a significant proportion of our own food. It would be foolhardy to do otherwise.
The argument does not stop there. The British countryside—or at least more than 75 per cent. of it—has been shaped over hundreds of years by the British farmer. Our birds, insects, trees, flowers, hedges and animals are here because of British farming, not in spite of it. A crisis for farming is a crisis for our wildlife and our unique countryside. The two are inseparable.
A third aspect is alluded to in the rural White Paper, which says:
Farming communities have created the fabric of our rural life over centuries — Rural life and the rural environment as we know it would not exist without farming".
Although farms no longer employ as many people as they used to, they still directly employ 600,000 people full-time and part-time. That is a great deal more than the steel or car industries. Farming also touches the lives of a great many more. That connection is partly material, because the livelihoods of many depend on our farms, and partly cultural. If we lose our farming roots, future generations will cease to understand what the countryside is all about. It is a place of work as well as a place to enjoy. The latter cannot exist without the former.
The countryside march on 18 March will, I hope, show how important the countryside still is in the hearts of those of us who still live there. Its cry, "Liberty and livelihood", touches a deep chord within us.

Mr. Edwards: It is a hunters' march.

Mr. Prior: Some Labour Members are not touched by that cry.
I believe that agriculture is special and different from other industries and that Governments have a vital role to play to ensure its future.
It is time—it is past the time—for agriculture to be returned from Europe to our national Governments. The failure of the Government to reform the CAP or to take more control over it is a failure of resolve and vision—and a failure that threatens the enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of eastern Europe.
I unashamedly advocate an interventionist role for Government. Farming is not an industry that can be tossed on to the waters of global free trade. The Opposition have other objectives: we want family farms to survive, we want to encourage mixed farming, we want to encourage less intensive methods of farming, such as LEAF—linking environment and farming—and organic farming, and we want to make our own rules on set-aside.
There will never be free and fair world trade in farm products. Animal welfare standards will vary, some countries will have different environmental priorities, land prices will vary hugely and food hygiene rules will differ. We can talk about a level playing field until the cows come home, but if we are honest with ourselves, we all know that it will never happen.
We can improve matters, of course, with honest labelling and the like, but different countries will have different priorities, and rightly so, because farming, as I have argued, is about more than trade alone. A country the size of the UK will always have a different approach to farming from that of a country the size of the USA, Brazil, Australia or even France.
Until the Government accept that farming is different, that it is special and that it involves far more than the price of a commodity, they will never have the vision or commitment to provide a future for the countryside.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: No hon. Member would deny that the situation facing our farmers and the entire rural economy is extremely serious. We recognise that a number of fundamental issues have contributed to that situation, as we heard in earlier contributions—the strength of the pound, food scares and the renegotiation of the complex and troublesome CAP.
Over the past four years, the Labour Government have shown a firm commitment to agriculture and to ensuring that our food is safe. The development of our Food Standards Agency is a leading example in Europe, in which we should all take pride. On many different fronts, the Government continue to tackle the underlying problems that affect British agriculture.
Over the longer term, that will help the industry to develop in a sustainable way—"sustainable" is the key word—in a regenerated, enlivened rural economy. It is essential that we do not rush towards the quick fix or the short-term solution that does not address the issues over the long term.
The rural White Paper was an example of joined-up government. It outlined a radical package of measures to tackle the issues that matter to people who live in the countryside, such as jobs, hospitals, schools, post offices and transport. Those measures will ensure that quality public services and a stable thriving economy are brought to everyone in rural areas, including people engaged in agriculture.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said, the White Paper makes it clear that
farming remains central to the vitality of rural areas".
He went on to say that since 1997 Labour has provided an extra £1 billion to help the farming industry, and that £1.6 billion will back up the comprehensive measures to be taken under the English rural development programme.
I welcome the modulation of the CAP, with the resulting increased funding for the development of agri-environmental schemes. I hope that we will hear more about those later. They will ease the way for many farmers to develop their business through the adoption of stewardship or organic farming, which is moving towards the top of the political agenda.
Under the Conservative Government, research and development funding for organic farming was just over £1 million a year. The Labour Government have increased that to more than £2 million, which means that we are second only to Denmark among EU countries.
In 1997–98, expenditure on countryside stewardship was £19 million a year. Labour has already increased that to £35 million. Under the rural development programme, expenditure will rise each year, reaching £126 million by 2006–07.
The Government have supported the adoption of integrated farm management. I was glad to hear comments on that from Members on both sides of the House. IFM integrates care for the environment with the production of safe, wholesome food at affordable prices. It is an approach to farming that will combine beneficial natural processes and traditional practices such as crop rotation with modern technology and selective targeted use of agrochemicals. The result is the ability to minimise pollution and avoid unnecessary use of chemicals and energy, while maintaining our profit margins.
IFM is supported partly through the DETR-funded scheme linking the environment and farming—appropriately known as LEAF. I visited a LEAF farm near my Peterborough constituency only last autumn, and was extremely impressed both by the personal commitment of the farmer concerned, David Felce, and by the potential of IFM to support a sustainable agriculture in the current economic conditions. In fact, I shall host an event here in March to help to increase awareness.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has also visited a LEAF farm, and that there is a strong possibility that MAFF will give LEAF additional support. LEAF has contributed to the production of sustainable development indicators at farm level, and I am glad to say that that too


has been favourably received by MAFF. I understand that LEAF' s contribution has also been recognised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
This Government recognise that agricultural problems cannot and should not be solved by a quick fix. It is a question of assessing the options that are workable for and available to farmers. There are taskforces whose purpose is to simplify the burden of law, without simply carrying out a "slash red tape" exercise—we have heard about that today as well—that might have undesirable knock-on effects, including endangering public safety.
Work is in progress to develop farm assurance schemes, and to help farmers to get nearer the marketplace. I understand that that includes diversification and the establishment of farmers markets and co-operatives. There is an assessment of the advisory services offered to farmers with the aim of reducing the industry's costs, and ensuring collaboration and better feed-through of information throughout. There are training schemes, free business advice, benchmarking and online information. Farm buildings now house computers as well as more traditional supplies and implements, as I have seen for myself.
In short, this Labour Government are developing a range of solutions for the agriculture industry, as well as tackling the social and economic problems of the rural economy, which will obviously benefit farmers too. Only by adopting a long-term comprehensive strategy will we ensure the sustainable development of a thriving, lively agriculture sector, which is what I believe we all want.

Mr. James Paice: I begin by reminding the House of the interest that I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
Our short debate has covered a lot of ground. No doubt the Minister of State will shortly rise with a pained expression, and declare that she cannot answer all the points that have been raised, but—as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—we need answers to many of the points made by Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will dispose of any pre-prepared speech and seek genuinely to deal with them.
A number of Labour Members were obviously at pains to criticise my party, but went on to recite exactly the points about problems in agriculture that we have made. We welcome what the Minister has done to alleviate at least some of the problems caused by flooding: the derogation with regard to the integrated administration and control system—or IACS—rules was very sensible, although I would not have expected the Minister to do otherwise.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, the Minister's account of his achievements sounded remarkably self-satisfied and smug. It could lead people to believe that things were getting better when, as we know, they are not.
The Minister accused Conservative Members of being against free trade and for protectionism. As all Opposition Members know, that is absolute rot. Conservative Members believe in free trade and the market because of political conviction—not because of political convenience, which is what attracts Labour Members to

such opinions. Nevertheless, we have to accept that totally unfettered free trade would cause standards to fall to the lowest common denominator. No hon. Member wants that in food standards, in welfare standards or in anything else. There must be a standards threshold to ensure that there is fair trade.
The Minister said a little about BSE and tried yet again to lay it at our door, and I know that BSE will be the subject of another debate. I noticed, however, that he failed to mention that today, Commissioner Byrne said that the rest of Europe should follow Britain's example of how to control a disease. Those controls were put in place by the previous, Conservative Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) made a very thoughtful speech in which he emphasised the importance of agriculture and explained why, for all types of reasons, it is different from other industries. He could also have mentioned the fact that 500,000 jobs in food processing would go abroad if the raw materials were sourced abroad.
Various hon. Members have spoken about agrimoney and compensation. It is essential that the Minister claim the available £202 million or thereabouts not only for its own sake, but because if he does not, we would be denied the opportunity in subsequent phases to claim another £170 million. However, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, the Minister gave us no indication of what will follow the current agrimonetary scheme, which expires on 1 January 2002. I think that the Opposition are justified in asking the Government to tell us their plans to negotiate a replacement—or does the Minister believe that Britain will have joined the euro by the end of this year?
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk mentioned the sugar industry. Two major threats hang over that industry, but in both cases, the Minister has gone against the interests of British industry. Although he seemed to try a different line today, I remind him of an answer that he gave only a little while ago in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). He said:
The hon. Gentleman overstates the danger … The quantities involved are relatively small and there are safeguards in the proposal."—[Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 550.]
The Commission, however, has published its own impact assessment showing that, if the everything but arms proposals had proceeded as originally planned, they would have cost the common agricultural policy 1 billion euros and reduced the sugar quota within the European Union by 1 million tonnes, which is about the same as the United Kingdom's entire production. Anyone who thinks that that is overstatement is deluding himself.
Now, as we have heard, the Commission has shelved the proposals, including those on sugar, for the next six years. It is doing that because once the French Government lost the presidency, they started to stand up for their own sugar industry. I wonder whether the Minister feels good that the British industry has been saved not by him but by the French Government.
The Minister espouses reform of the regime, but he wants even bigger cuts than those demanded by the Commission. Indeed, he has previously quoted some of my right hon. Friends in support of his claim. However, when those calls for reductions were made, all arable


crops were making reasonable, and in some cases substantial, margins. Now, no other mainstream arable crop is making a margin at all.
By how much would the Minister expect the price of a packet of biscuits or a soft drink to fall if the sugar price were cut by 20 or 30 per cent? Can he tell us? The answer is almost certainly that the price would not be reduced by a penny. Neither has he commented on whether he believes in area-based compensation for sugar price reductions, as has been provided for other arable crops.
The Minister also referred to the TB crisis in our cattle industry, which is serious and getting worse. The Krebs inquiry said that trials should be running in three months, but three years down the line, not all the trials are up and running.

Mr. Nick Brown: They are.

Mr. Paice: The Minister says that they are. They are not: proactive culling has not taken place at three of the 10 sites. If the Minister does not know what is going on in a programme for which he is responsible, he should be ashamed of himself. The husbandry panel published proposals last May, but the Minister did not respond until two weeks ago. Even then, he failed to act on some of the recommendations. Farmers know the truth—that none of these Ministers wants to make the tough decisions that may flow from the completed trials. The Minister has also failed to address the issue of cattle movement out of the hot spots and into clean areas.
We have also heard about the sum of £26 million for the pig industry restructuring scheme. The Minister said that he was trying to ensure that the amount was rolled over, and he has our support in that.

Mr. Brown: That will not help.

Mr. Paice: The Minister says that that will not help, but he forgets that he has only two or three months to secure the rollover. However, if he fails to convince the Chancellor to roll over that money, will he assure the House that he will use it to help the pig industry by advancing the amount that will be raised from the levy for the pig welfare scheme? The industry has asked him to do that, but so far he has rejected the request. If there is no rollover, that money would be available to the Minister, and it is reasonable to expect him to use it for that purpose.
Finally, what has the Minister done about the cause of the outbreak of swine fever? His own officials attribute it to illegally imported pigmeat. What has he done to control any further such imports?
Much of the debate has been about regulation and the opportunities for diversification. Of course agriculture must change, but change should not mean extinction—yet that is what faces thousands of farmers today.
We have set out on many occasions our principles for reform of the common agricultural policy. It ill behoves the Minister to accuse the Opposition of not having ideas, given that the Prime Minister went to Berlin when the Agenda 2000 proposals were being agreed, and managed to make the resolution even worse for Britain than the settlement that the Minister had achieved.
For farming to survive tomorrow, we do not need to concentrate on preaching about new directions. Farming is being priced and regulated out of existence. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk gave an excellent example of that from her constituency. Lord Haskins made 21 recommendations, on top of the 98 that the Minister had already accepted. What was the Minister's reaction to Lord Haskins? He created three more taskforces.
Never has long grass been so abused as by this Minister. Since he has been in office, 20 separate working groups, taskforces and reviews have been set up. Lord Haskins' report was published on 16 November. Why did the Minister not tell his civil servants the day after to get on and fulfil its recommendations at once? In the time between publication of the report and the announcement of the taskforces, another 4,000 people lost their jobs in the farming industry.
The action plan was an example of cynical manipulation of the facts. The Minister produced one budget for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that contained swingeing cuts, and then reinstated that money in the expectation that he would be acclaimed as a hero—and he did not do that with the hill livestock allowance alone. For example, in the action plan, the Minister sought to abolish the 30-month wait limit, but who introduced the limit in the first place? Labour. He sought to hold the increase in meat hygiene charges to the level of inflation, but who wanted to raise them by more than inflation? Labour. He sought to defer the annual charge for sheep dip disposal. Who set the charge? Labour. He deferred the introduction of integrated pollution prevention and control for pig farmers. Who introduced it? Labour.
The harsh fact is that, by his actions, the Minister has betrayed consumers and conned farmers. He came into office with his bonhomie and apparent concern, yet has presided over a worsening crisis, to which his main response has been to set up working groups, taskforces and reviews. While he has dithered and delayed, farmers and farm workers have been losing their jobs and their businesses faster than ever before, at a rate of 60 a week—week in, week out—for the past two years. During his speech, at least two more jobs were lost. The sooner it is his job that is lost, the better.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): This debate has been characterised by a number of thoughtful contributions, focusing on the present difficulties in agriculture and on ideas for securing the future of the industry. I welcome much of what has been said, although once again, the speeches of Opposition Front-Bench Members have proved the exception in what has overall been a worthwhile debate.
At least the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) began his speech by recognising the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had listened to the concerns of farmers around the country. However, the hon. Gentleman failed to


acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has not stopped at simply listening to farmers' concerns but has taken an enormous number of measures and a great deal of action. Fortunately, that fact emerged from other contributions, including that of my right hon. Friend, during the debate.
My right hon. Friend began his speech by pointing out the inaccuracies in the Opposition's motion. He dealt effectively with the charges of failure to act and detailed the action that we had taken in the light of the measures that are necessary in the short term, as well as the medium and longer term. He spoke of the measures that had been taken domestically, within the United Kingdom, and of the work that we have put into building up alliances for common agricultural policy reform. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said that he would insist on CAP reform. It is a question not simply of standing up at European meetings and insisting, but of building up alliances so that concrete changes in agricultural reform are secured. That is what the Government, through their much more constructive European engagement, have done.
Many right hon. and hon. Members referred to the action plan for farming. Excellent progress is being made in the delivery of that plan. Of the 63 measures in the plan, 49 have been implemented. Recent examples, which have been referred to by some Opposition Members as well as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have been the ongoers and outgoers elements of the pig industry restructuring scheme and the recent announcement of aid to help to secure the future of small and medium-sized abattoirs. I commend the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) about the situation in that sector in his constituency.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the introduction of the farm business advisory service. We are very keen that there should be a good take-up of the scheme. Indeed, I was in the south-west only yesterday, encouraging farmers in that area, particularly hill farmers, to take advantage of that service. We sent details of the scheme to all farmers in the United Kingdom to encourage those in isolated and remote areas and those who were worried about the future to access and take advantage of it. We feel strongly about that.
My right hon. Friend and others also referred to the rural development programme and the welcome flexibility that it offers all sectors in agriculture, including, for example, horticulture, which does not get mainstream support from the common agricultural policy. Indeed, the rural development programme is a forward-looking measure, which recognises the differing roles that farmers fulfil—the important roles of food production and of countryside stewardship.
We have achieved a lot in CAP reform, especially through the establishment of the second rural development pillar. I believe, too, that we have made real progress in securing improvements in animal welfare. We achieved a change in the treaty to ensure that animals were recognised as sentient beings, and we are moving towards a more level playing field for directives on the welfare of laying hens and, recently, on pig welfare, about which many hon. Members are deeply concerned. Indeed, our

successes in the EU have been shown by small but important measures, such as those safeguarding traditional hedgerow practices, about which hon. Members have expressed much concern in previous agriculture debates.
I should like to turn to some of the specific questions on sugar. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) asked about recent changes proposed by the Commission. It is true that the Commission is reconsidering aspects of the everything but arms proposal, but it is also true that no formal proposal for change has yet come forward. She referred to speculation in the farming press, but until the whole college of Commissioners considers the issues, we can neither react to them, nor make a public pronouncement on them. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister will meet Commissioner Lamy to find out about his current proposals, and we shall continue to strive to ensure a balance.
The right hon. Lady said that when Conservative Ministers called for dramatic reforms in the EU sugar regime in the past, farmers were in a different financial position. Indeed, that suggestion was repeated by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I accept that farmers were in a different financial position, but several Conservative Members, including some who sit on the Front Bench, have written to me putting an argument entirely different from the one that she and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire have espoused. Several Conservative Members have told us that they want the sugar regime to be dramatically changed along the lines that she previously proposed.

Mrs. Shephard: The Official Report will reveal that the Minister of State has attributed remarks to me that I did not make. My point is simply that the current proposals are incompatible, and I merely sought to find out whether Agriculture Ministers in this Labour Government support the British industry—but no answer has there come today.

Ms Quin: When the right hon. Lady was a Minister, she argued strongly for price cuts that she does not support now—[Interruption.] She says that I attributed to her remarks that she did not make. If she had listened carefully, she would have heard that I also referred to the remarks —

Mr. James Cran: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided:Ayes 145, Noes 267.

Division No. 99]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Baker, Norman


Allan, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Beggs, Roy


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bercow, John






Beresford, Sir Paul
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Livsey, Richard


Body, Sir Richard
Llwyd, Elfyn


Boswell, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Luff, Peter


Brady, Graham
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brand, Dr Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Bums, Simon
Malins, Humfrey


Burstow, Paul
Maples, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Norman, Archie


Cormack, Sir Patrick
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Cotter, Brian
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Prior, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
Rendel, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robathan, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fabricant, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shepherd, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Soames, Nicholas


Garnier, Edward
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gidley, Sandra
Spring, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Steen, Anthony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stunell, Andrew


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Harvey, Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hawkins, Nick
Townend, John


Hayes, John
Tredinnick, David


Heald, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tyler, Paul


Horam, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Jenkin, Bernard
Webb, Steve


Keetch, Paul
Whittingdale, John


Key, Robert
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wilkinson, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Yeo, Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Ayes:


Letwin, Oliver
Mr. John Randall and


Lidington, David
Mr. Peter Atkinson.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Atkins, Charlotte


Allen, Graham
Austin, John





Bailey, Adrian
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Banks, Tony
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Barnes, Harry
Flint, Caroline


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fyfe, Maria


Bennett, Andrew F
Galloway, George


Benton, Joe
Gardiner, Barry


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Best, Harold
Gerrard, Neil


Betts, Clive
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blizzard, Bob
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Borrow, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Grocott, Bruce


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Grogan, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Browne, Desmond
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Burgon, Colin
Healey, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caplin, Ivor
Hendrick, Mark


Casale, Roger
Hepburn, Stephen


Caton, Martin
Heppell, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoey, Kate


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Ann
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cooper, Yvette



Corbett, Robin
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cox, Tom
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cranston, Ross
Joyce, Eric


Crausby, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cummings, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Khabra, Piara S


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kidney, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darvill, Keith
Lammy, David


Davidson, Ian
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Laxton, Bob


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lepper, David



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Denham, John
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Dobbin, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Love, Andrew


Drew, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Drown, Ms Julia
McCabe, Steve


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Edwards, Huw



Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonagh, Siobhain


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McDonnell, John


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John






McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McIsaac, Shona
Rooney, Terry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Rowlands, Ted


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roy, Frank


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


MacShane, Denis
Ryan, Ms Joan


McWalter, Tony
Salter, Martin


Mallaber, Judy
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Steinberg, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stuart Ms Gisela


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, David (NWLeics)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Timms, Stephen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Truswell, Paul


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dennis (Wotverh'ton SE)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Neill, Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tynan, Bill


Perham, Ms Linda
Walley, Ms Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Ward, Ms Claire


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Plaskitt, James
Watts, David


Pope, Greg
White, Brian


Pound, Stephen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prosser, Gwyn
Winnick, David


Purchase, Ken
Woolas, Phil


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Worthington, Tony


Rammell, Bill
Wray, James


Raynsford, Nick
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)
Wyatt, Derek






Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31(Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 114.

Division No. 100]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Alexander, Douglas
Austin, John


Allan, Richard
Bailey, Adrian


Allen. Graham
Baker, Norman





Banks, Tony
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Galloway, George


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Gardiner, Barry


Bennett, Andrew F
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Benton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Bermingham, Gerald
Gibson, Dr Ian


Best, Harold
Gidley, Sandra


Betts, Clive
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blears, Ms Hazel
Godsiff, Roger


Blizzard, Bob
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Borrow, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Grocott, Bruce


Bradshaw, Ben
Grogan, John


Brand, Dr Peter
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hanson, David


Browne, Desmond
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Buck, Ms Karen
Harvey, Nick


Burden, Richard
Healey, John


Burgon, Colin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burstow, Paul
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hendrick, Mark


Caplin, Ivor
Hepburn, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Heppell, John


Caton, Martin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cawsey, Ian
Hill, Keith


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coleman, Iain
Hutton, John


Colman, Tony
Iddon, Dr Brian


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Jamieson, David


Cooper, Yvette
Jenkins, Brian


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corbyn, Jeremy



Corston, Jean
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cox, Tom
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cranston, Ross
Joyce, Eric


Crausby, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cummings, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)
Keetch, Paul



Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Khabra, Piara S


Darvill, Keith
Kidney, David


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Davis, Rt Hon Terry(B'ham Hodge H)
Laxton, Bob



Lepper, David


Denham, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dobbin, Jim
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Livsey, Richard


Drew, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Love, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McCabe, Steve


Edwards, Huw
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonagh, Siobhain


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McDonnell, John


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
McIsaac, Shona


Flint, Caroline
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary






Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Roy, Frank


McNamara, Kevin
Ruddock, Joan


MacShane, Denis
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McWalter, Tony
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mallaber, Judy
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Singh, Marsha


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Steinberg, Gerry


Moffatt, Laura
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, David (NWLeics)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Touhig, Don


O'Hara, Eddie
Truswell, Paul


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'lon SE)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Perham, Ms Linda
Tyler, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Tynan, Bill


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Joan


Plaskitt, James
Ward, Ms Claire


Pond, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Pope, Greg
Watts, David


Pound, Stephen
Webb, Steve


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
White, Brian


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Rammell, Bill
Woolas, Phil


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wray, James


Rendel, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)



Wyatt, Derek


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Collins, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Beggs, Roy
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bercow, John
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Body, Sir Richard
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brady, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fallon, Michael





Flight, Howard
Norman, Archie


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gray, James
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shepherd, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Spring, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Jenkin, Bernard
Syms, Robert


Key, Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Letwin, Oliver
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lidington, David
Townend, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tredinnick, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Trend, Michael


Loughton, Tim
Tyrie, Andrew


Luff, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walter, Robert


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Waterson, Nigel


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wlkinson, John


Malins, Humfrey
Yeo, Tim


Maples, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maude, Rt Hon Francis



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the continuing difficulties faced by the agriculture sector as a result of the low level of farm incomes; endorses the Government's long term vision for agriculture as sustainable, competitive and diverse, environmentally responsible, and an integral part of vibrant rural economies; recognises the important role of the new Rural Development Programmes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in delivering this vision; welcomes the measures in the Action Plan for Farming and the Rural White Paper to give immediate financial relief to the hardest-hit sectors and to reduce the burden of regulation on farming; supports the Government's constructive engagement in Europe to reform further the Common Agricultural Policy; notes that the Conservative party's policies of banning foreign imports and taking unilateral action in areas of European Union competence are illegal and would lead to heavy penalties being levied on UK taxpayers as well as retaliatory action against UK exporters; notes that the Conservative Party have not indicated how much of the £16 billion they propose in public expenditure cuts would fall on British farmers; and calls on the Conservative Party instead to come forward with practical and constructive policies to help farmers through very difficult times.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COMPANIES

That the draft Companies (EU Political Expenditure) Exemption Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 7 February, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

That this House takes note of European Union Document Nos. 9712/00, relating to the proposed Statute for Members of the European Parliament, and 9560/00, relating to the audit of the expenditure of the European Parliament's political groups; supports the Government's efforts to secure agreement on a Statute for Members of the European Parliament; and notes the Nice European Council's agreement on a legal basis for a Statute to regulate the funding of European political parties, as recommended by the Report of the Court of Auditors.—[Mr. Allen.]

Question agreed to.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],

That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the

purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest. [Mr. Allen.]

Hon. Members:: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Allen.]

Hon. Members:: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],

That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Allen.]

Hon. Members:: Object.

PETITION

Parrots

Mr. Bob Laxton: I wish to present a petition bearing 2,099 names on behalf of Kathy Howell, other residents of Derby, North, and Parrot Line.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Derby North Constituency and others,
Declares that every year thousands of parrots are caught in their natural habitats, put into boxes and shipped over to the United Kingdom for sale to the general public as pets, many of them being very old and leaving their long-term monogamous mates behind, and that the only birds which should be allowed to enter the United Kingdom are those which need help in repopulating their indigenous environments.
The Petitioners therefore Request that the House of Commons urge The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to introduce measures which will prevent the unnecessary importation of parrots.
And the petitioners Remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Education SSA (Worcestershire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Sir Michael Spicer: I hope that the Minister for School Standards will not respond like a parrot to my supplication.
There is no rhyme or reason to the present method of disbursing education funds in this country, except history. In Worcestershire, a Conservative-led local education authority historically ran an efficient and tight budget. It did so especially in the 1970s and 1980s, in contrast with Labour-controlled authorities. The spending patterns of its budgets were subsequently set in stone through the workings of the rate support grant formula, even though circumstances have radically changed since.
The formula is obscure and incomprehensible. It is based not on real needs or genuine costs, but on history and the perceived view that it would be unacceptable to rock the boat by changing the existing pecking order between LEAs. The dynamics of the position are that those who receive least receive relatively even less as time goes by. Thus Worcestershire is third from the bottom in a table that lists SSA per primary school pupil in 34 counties. In other words, it received the third lowest SSA increase in last November's round. That has happened not because Worcestershire's education needs are less than those of Dorset, Cambridgeshire or even neighbouring Gloucestershire or Warwickshire, but because that is the way it has been. Moreover, unless something changes, that is the way it will continue to be.
The fig leaf that is used in an attempt to give respectability to that procedure is the concept of the area cost adjustment formula, which is meant to compensate for different costs in different areas. It is nonsense, however, for at least two reasons. First, the largest cost element in education is, overwhelmingly, teachers' salaries, which are nationally determined and are the same for all areas. Secondly, even the marginal cost differences that are built into the formula are often spurious.
I cannot find any differences in cost or needs between, say, Wiltshire and Worcestershire, yet Wiltshire is 23rd on the county league table of secondary school recipients and Worcestershire is 31st. Nor can I find great differences between near-neighbouring Oxfordshire, which is in eighth place, and Gloucestershire, its neighbour—and, indeed, Worcestershire's—in 28th place. It is a dog's breakfast, and the Government know it.
I presume that that is why, on 30 April 1997, immediately before the general election, the then Leader of the Opposition declared in an interview with the Cambridge Evening News:
We will review the area cost adjustment in time for the next financial year.
Four years have passed, and all that has happened recently is the publication of a Green Paper on modernising local government finance. In that document, the Government appear to recognise the grossly distorted and unfair method of treatment that is built into the area cost adjustment formula and, therefore, into the disbursal of education expenditure. The Green Paper promises that the Government will present some concrete suggestions for remedying the position. However, they will not do that before 2003–04.
Meanwhile, even if we dismiss some of the cruder calculations of the additional amounts that schools in Worcestershire should receive when compared with the national average—the figures run into hundreds of thousands of pounds a year even for primary schools—under the current arrangements unless class sizes increase dramatically, budget shortfalls lie ahead. That is true even if they are unplanned. The capacity to raid repair and maintenance budgets, where they still exist, is running out.
The skill of government is the ability to differentiate between special pleading, which is undertaken for its own sake, and a genuine grievance. There is no doubt that the latter is true for education in Worcestershire.
All Governments have a duty to tackle such gross lack of parity in treatment. It is also sensible for them to do that. The citizens of this country will stomach an awful lot but they will never accept irrational inequality of treatment. That is shown by the hundreds of furious letters that my hon. Friends who represent Worcestershire constituencies have received on the subject in the past week or so.

Mr. Peter Luff: Is my hon. Friend, like me, experiencing the largest ever lobby campaign on any issue in his parliamentary career? I have received more than 1,000 letters protesting against a predicament that was bad four years ago and has got much worse.

Sir Michael Spicer: I agree and sympathise with my hon. Friend. I have received a similar number of letters. Indeed, my fax machine broke down. It has now been repaired and is spewing out more letters from unhappy constituents.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I want to put it on record that I too have received many representations. In my much shorter parliamentary career, I have never experienced anything like it. I suspect that my office has received 1,000 letters, which will of course all get a reply. That number shows the strength of feeling, of which I hope the Minister will take account.

Sir Michael Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend. Even the masses of letters in support of foxhunting have been greatly exceeded by those on the issue that we are considering. I was trying to calculate how long it had been since I previously received such quantities of mail. I believe that it was in 1974, when there was a mass revolt against the rate rises that were introduced by the then Labour Government.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the sentiment of a letter that was sent to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock), from a Conservative councillor in Bewdley?
Mr. Stephen Groome said:
I am upset that both my children and yours are disadvantaged by virtue of the fact that we live in one of the poorest funded Counties.
The letter continues:
The funding provided by the previous Government was derisory".

Sir Michael Spicer: That is a good cue for my next point. It is no good the hon. Gentleman or the Minister


saying that they inherited the problem. Labour's rhetoric, to which the hon. Gentleman was doubtless party, was partly responsible for bringing the Government to power. It suggested that they would wave a magic wand over education. However, for Worcestershire, the slogan "Education, education, education" is a sick joke.
Education services in Worcestershire are being progressively run down on the Minister's watch. The Government are going to have to do better than simply publish Green Papers that kick the problem into the long grass. That is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will not spend much of her speech saying that this problem is someone else's fault. She is in charge at the moment, and the problem has risen to a critical level during her term in office.
Of course, it is general election time, and the Government have felt the need to be seen to be doing something to remedy the problem. Instead of setting out to change the basic formula, they have this week made a larger than average one-off payment to Worcestershire of £1.35 million. That is about £1 million short of the amount needed to allow schools to run a standstill budget compared with last year. Unless the county steps in with local taxpayers' money, schools that might have ended up with a deficit budget of, say, £50,000—as was the case in one of the secondary schools in my constituency—will now be able to cut that by half.
As for the revenue support grant and the area cost adjustment formula—the source of the inequality of treatment between local education authorities—nothing has changed. As it is, the gap between the recipients of the largest amounts and the smallest will continue to grow, and dissatisfaction and disenchantment will well up. No amount of temporary bandaging will put that right.
What is required from the Minister is a clear statement that the present mumbo-jumbo, masquerading as a rational formula, will be abolished and that it will be replaced by a procedure that can be clearly understood. When costs are set nationally, allocation of funds should be on a strict per pupil basis. When there are genuine differences in costs or needs between areas, they should be properly identified. I hope that the Minister will at least say that this is her intention, and that she understands the growing urgency of the matter.
I would also like the Minister to respond to one more point. Next Wednesday, 7 February, a large delegation of governors and head teachers is coming to the House of Commons. Will she please say that she or one of her colleagues will meet a representative delegation from that group?

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) on securing this debate. I readily accept that this is what might be called the hot political issue in Worcestershire. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), is in Worcester tonight, so she cannot be with me on the Front Bench, although I know that she would otherwise have wished to be here.
I shall first respond to the request that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the meeting that is being held here next Wednesday. I received a letter today from

a group calling itself parent governors. I had not realised that the group would consist of head teachers and governors. I told my office that I would be delighted to call in to the Grand Committee Room some time between 3.30 and 5 pm to meet them and listen to what they have to say.

Mr. Luff: I appreciate that this problem is not all the Minister's fault—it is also the fault of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Will she put pressure on one of her ministerial colleagues in that Department to meet the group, which will consist mainly of parent governors, but also of some head teachers? It would be only a small group, and it would be most helpful if the Minister could do that.

Ms Morris: I cannot commit my ministerial colleagues, and I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to do so. It is sometimes difficult to secure time at such short notice. On the two days before the meeting, I shall visit schools outside London and I would not have been able to attend a meeting on those days, although I should not have intended any discourtesy. I am sure that people will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that the invitation will be extended to my colleagues at DETR. I accept that SSAs are essentially a DETR responsibility.
I shall start on a note of agreement with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. I am not here to defend SSAs; I am not prepared to do so. In his closing remarks, he spoke of a system of financing that was fair, transparent and flexible and that would acknowledge the needs of local areas. That is what we want as well.
Under this Government, the system will be changed. We are consulting on the matter at the moment. We really tried in our first year: we got everyone together from the Local Government Association, the counties and the urban areas, including London. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that not one local authority leader—Tory, Liberal Democrat or Labour—is volunteering to say that they do well out of the present SSA structure. Therein lies the problem. London appears, on paper, to be exceptionally well funded. Representatives of London bodies come to the House and talk about the difficulties that they have with asylum seekers, and with people coming here without English as their first language. All those needs must be acknowledged.
I have said many times in Adjournment debates and outside the House that during our first year in office, when we hoped to achieve general agreement about changing the SSA system, we did not manage to achieve that agreement. We had a choice at that point: push a measure through, which we could have done with our majority and even though there was no consensus among local authorities, or wait, talk more, consider different models and try to get it right. I would sooner do the latter because getting it right is in the best interests of pupils, parents, governors and teachers. We will not be able to make a change again for a long time. The Conservative Government had experience of that. Changing the way in which education is funded year after year after year just confuses the situation.
The change to the formula will be massive and it has to be right. If making that change takes longer than we expected, I will make no apologies for that, although I am


happy to acknowledge that I wish that we had been able to achieve agreement among local authorities in our first year in office.
When I was in opposition, I, too, received lots of letters from people in Staffordshire and Worcestershire about exactly the same problem. People have not begun to write such letters since 1997. We had big postbags before then, and the Conservatives did not make such a pledge. They did not even consider the SSA and did nothing to resolve what is essentially a difficult situation. I do not want to spend all my 15 minutes talking about that, but it is the truth.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire is right that the formula is historic, but history did not begin in 1997. The formula has not served the people of this country well for many years, and that has affected his constituents and mine. Changing it is a tough job, but one that we are determined to do. I want to discuss general financing in Worcestershire.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to the current position and the future, may I take her back a step? Although there is consensus across the House about the need to change the SSA formula, is she aware that in 1991–92 Conservative-controlled Hereford and Worcester county council deliberately set a budget £5.4 million under education SSA? The consequence of that over the next 10 years was that children in Worcestershire were short-changed by some £42 million.

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) have worked hard and lobbied on behalf of their constituents in the county to get the formula changed. Now we know what the hon. Member for West Worcestershire meant when he described the previous finance figures as representing a good, tight ship with tight budgeting and tight financing. That they were, but as a result spending was below SSA and children did not get the investment that they needed.
That gives me the opportunity to say that, shamefully, secondary and primary funding per pupil in Worcestershire fell during the last four years of the Tory Government. There was no year on year improvement. The hon. Gentleman did not come to the House to discuss how much extra his area had received; it received less. That is why people are so cross in Worcestershire today. I understand that and feel for them. Their children are in school while education expenditure is increasing and they want a fair share of the extra money that we are allocating. They feel that they have got a rough deal, but let us be clear about the fact that the letters that they wrote before the election of a Labour Government in 1997 were about a real cut in funding, year on year on year. Under this Government, their argument is that they are not getting as big a share of a bigger cake as they would like. I have some sympathy with them on straight SSAs.

Sir Michael Spicer: There is no example that I can recollect, certainly in my constituency, of schools saying under a Conservative Administration, "We simply cannot carry on with our present budget." Under the Minister's Administration, that is exactly what is being said. It is

absolutely outrageous. Her party came to power on the slogan, "Education, education, education", and it is hypocritical to take such a line.

Ms Morris: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman was in the years before 1997. For many of those years, I taught in schools and I remember what happened under the Conservative Government. Year after year, there were teacher redundancies because of shortfalls in the budget. I do not think that Worcestershire's schools were different from any other schools in the country in having to cope with a reduced budget. Under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, the amount of money per pupil fell, but it has risen under this Government. Those are not our figures. No one contests them. The hon. Gentleman must justify the history; I do not have to do so.
Expenditure is increasing. The soreness felt by Worcestershire's schools is about their share of a bigger cake. That is why there is an urgency about changing the formula. I cannot in all honesty explain why children in Worcestershire get less money than children in Wiltshire—I think that that was the example given by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know the exact figures for those two counties, but the system is irrational. He is right about that. It is a historic system, which does not serve us well.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we were elected on a pledge of "Education, education, education". We said that we would spend more on education than did our predecessors, and we have delivered. There is more money going into the SSA. There is an increase this year of £8.82 million, or 3.71 per cent.—not a cut, as there was under the Conservative Government.
More money is going into Worcestershire's schools, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, as the head teacher of Droitwich Spa high school has welcomed publicly in a letter, the £1.3 million that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made available last Monday, in acknowledgement of the fact that Worcestershire has had a difficult settlement this year. The money will go some way towards helping with that.

Mr. Luff: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ms Morris: I will, but this will be the last intervention that I take, because of shortage of time.

Mr. Luff: I have a letter from the head teacher of Droitwich Spa high school, in which she makes it clear that the extra £1.3 million is welcome. We all welcome it, but it is only a little over half the amount required to close the funding gap between what we have now and a standstill budget. Schools in Worcestershire are still facing a crisis, and the gap is growing between them and the national average for funding per pupil, as it has grown every year under the right hon. Lady's Government.

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right that the head teacher goes on to say that. I was going to deal with that. One of the things that has changed between the previous Government and the present one is that money goes into schools in many different ways. That does not happen just through the SSA, although the SSA is the major source of funding for schools.
Money is allocated through direct special grant, and Worcestershire's schools will receive £6.3 million in direct grant this year. That is worth an average of £20,000


for primary schools and £60,000 for secondary schools. It has been promised that that will be uprated by 2.7 per cent. to cover inflation for each of the next two years. The hon. Gentleman called for transparency. In fairness, we must look at the different routes for funding and the amount that Worcestershire's schools end up with, compared with what they would have received had the Tories still been in power.
I draw the House's attention to capital investment. One of the most shameful things that happened under the previous Government was the manifest under-investment in the school buildings in which our teachers teach and our pupils learn. The figures for Hereford and Worcester—the joint county before the split—show that in 1996–97, the last year for which the Conservative Government had responsibility for the budget, capital expenditure was £6.02 million. That is the figure for both counties.
In this year, in Worcestershire alone, the corresponding figure is £26.5 million—not for the two counties, but for Worcestershire alone. There is El 1 million as part of the new deal for schools, in direct grant—no borrowing and no interest to be paid by taxpayers in Worcestershire. A further £1 million has gone to the county in order to

achieve our class size pledge. Money directly allocated to schools in terms of capital will increase over the next few years.
I am not seeking to defend a formula that ill serves the children of Worcestershire—that would be dishonourable and dishonest. I am saying that we are trying our best, with all reasonable speed, to change that. We are the Government who have given a pledge that that will change. We are the only Government who have set in motion a consultation system under which we hope to bring about change. I would sooner achieve that through consensus among local authorities than have one local authority at another local authority's throat, as is the case at present.
Despite that, children in Worcestershire now receive more money for their education than they ever did under the Government whom the hon. Member for West Worcestershire supported. Schools and buildings in Worcestershire are in better shape and are becoming fit for education in the 21st century, because the Government have invested in education. In that way, we have more than kept our pledge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.